PAGENO="0001" (ii ( FEDERAL WATER POLLUTIION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS-1%8 (90.-28) HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON ILRO 15906 and Related Bills TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONThOL ACT, AS AMENDED (OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT) APRIL 23, 24, 25, AND MAY 2, 1D68 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Worke 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 94-376 WASHINGTON : 1968 PAGENO="0002" t COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland~ Chairman JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT H. JONES, Ja., Alabama JOHN C. KLtJCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES KEE, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME R. WALDIE, California HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina RAY ROBERTS, Texas WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio JEROME H. WALDIE, California WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida JAMES H. GROVER, JR., New York DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McDWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas COMMITTEE STAFF RICHARD J. `SULLIVAN, Chief Counsei LESTeR EDELMAN, Coun8el CLIrFON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel SHELDON S. GILBERT, As800i ate Minority Counsel STAFW ASSISTANTS DOROTHY BEAM, Executive Staff Assistant MERIAM BUCKLEY ERLA S. YOUMANS ANNE KENNEDY ST~LLA SPAULDING STERLYN B. CARROLL SIJBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota, Chairman MAURICE B. TOBIN, Counsel (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page Appendix - 651 Bills (title and sponsor) 1 TESTIMONY- Basford, William, Jacksonville, Fla., National Association of Counties, accompanied by C. D. Ward, general counsel 430 Boggs, Thomas Hale, Jr., Boating Industry Association 102 Boyer, James F., Jr., project scientist, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc_ 177 Calhoon, Jesse M., president, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO); accompanied by Hoyt Haddock, executive director 444 Canham, Robert A., assistant secretary and editor, Water Pollution Control Federation 475 Checket, Everett S., marine general manager, Mobil Oil Co., New York, N.Y., and member of American Petroleum Institute's General Committee; accompanied by P. N. Gammelgard, vice president of environmental affairs, American Petroleum Institute; John W. Pittman, Shell Oil Co., and Ralph F. Casey, president, American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc 353 Choate, Joseph E., on behalf of National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers 563 Clusen, Mrs. Donald, director, League of Women Voters of the United States 417 Coffey, John J., secretary, Environmental Pollution Advisory Panel, Chamber of Commerce of the United States 138 Conservation Panel on Water Pollution, composed of Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources; William E. Towell, executive vice president, American Forestry Association; Louis Clapper, chief, Conservation Education Division, National Wildlife Federation; John L. Hall, executive director, the Wilderness Society; Joseph W. Penfold, conservation director, the Izaak Walton League of America; C. R. Gutermuth, vice president, Wildlife Management Institute; and Lloyd Tupling, Washington representative, Sierra Club 495 Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan 342 Gunther, John J., on behalf of the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors 599 Hanley, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 291 Hawes, Alexander B., on behalf of the American Waterways Op- erators, Inc.; accompanied by Markham Ball 556 Hirshfield, Vice Adm. James A., U.S. Coast Guard (retired), president, Lake Carriers Association; accompanied by Scott Hawes, American Waterways Operators, Inc 457 Keith, Hon. Hastings, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 286 Kinney, John E., sanitary engineering consultant, Ann Arbor, Mich 529 Knowlton, David C., chairman of the Air and Water Resources Com- mittee, American Paper Institute; accompanied by Floyd 0. Flom, vice president of public affairs, American Paper Institute 322 Maxa, J. D., general sales manager, Koehler-Dayton, Inc.; accom- panied by William Smyers, chief research engineer, New Britain Machine Co 468 Oeming, Loring F., executive secretary, Michigan Water Resources Commission, Lansing, Mich 58 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Testimony-Continued Polanco-Abreu, Hon. Santiago, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Page Rico; accompanied by Orville Watkins, administrative assistant - - 296 Reuss, Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 412 Rockefeller, Hon. Nelson A., Governor of the State of New York; accompanied by Dr. Hollis Ingraham, commissioner of health; Joseph H. Murphy, commissioner of taxation and finance; and Ronald W. Pedersen, program associate, executive chamber, State of New York 262 Rostenkowski, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 100 Shearer, John C. J., London insurance executive, accompanied by Peter N. Miller, London insurance executive 391 Steiger, Hon. William A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 55 Teague, Hon. Charles M., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 490 Trimble, Vice Adm. Paul E., U.S. Coast Guard; accompanied by Admiral Murphy, Captain Jenkins, and Commander DeWolL - - - 87 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior; accompanied by Hon. Max N. Edwards, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water Pollution Control; Hon. Joe G. Moore, Jr., Commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of the Interior; Philip S. Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget; and David Finnegan, Assistant Legislative Counsel, Department of the Interior 3,73,609 Wallace, Elizabeth, the Oyster Institute of North America 338 Wilcox, Capt. Robert, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), director, port oper- ations, Maryland Port Authority 453 Wright, James F., executive director, Delaware River Basin Commis- sion 407 WRITTEN STATEMENTS- American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc., Harper H. Hull, president~. 566 American Dredging Co., Philadelphia, Pa., Maylin H. Greaser, president 670 Bates, Hon. William H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 607 Basford, William, county commissioner, Duval County, Fla., chair- man, Committee on Air and Water Pollution Control, National Association of Counties 432 Biemiller, Andrew J., director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO. 676 Blackburn, Hon. Ben B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia 652 Boggs Thomas Hale, Jr., Boating Industry Association 102 Burt, Robert F., director, air and water resources, California Manu- facturers Association 253 Calgon Corp 682 Casey Ralph E., president, American Merchant Marine Institute~~ 381 Clapper Louis S., on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation. - - - 500 Coulter, James B., assistant commissioner for environmental health service Maryland State Department of Health 697 Doan H. D., president, the Dow Chemical Co 605 Dow, Hon. John G., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 603 Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., Detroit, Mich., E. D. Wattles, president 670 Esch, Hon. Marvin L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan 658 Gammelgard, P. N., vice president of environmental affairs, American Petroleum Institute, and director of Committee for Air and Water Conservation 371 Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., Chicago, Ill., John A. Downs, president 670 Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board 681 Gulf Coast Dredging Association, New Orleans, La 670 PAGENO="0005" V Written statements-Continued Page Gutermuth C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute___ 518 Hall, John L., assistant executive director, the Wilderness Society__ 506 Halpern, Hon. Seymour, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 481 Investment Bankers Association 688 Johnson, Hon. Harold T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 257 Lake Carriers' Association, presented by Vice Adm. James A. Hirsh- field, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), president~ 461 Langen, Hon. Odin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 656 Maritime Law Association of the United States, special committee - 701 Miller Peter N., director, Thos. R. Miller & Son Insurance, Ltd., of London 402 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii 651 Nassau County Planning Commission 664 National Association of Manufacturers 670 National Association of Rivers and Harbors Contractors, Baltimore, Md 670 National Audubon Society, Robert C. Boardman, director, public information 695 Oeming, Loring F., executive secretary, Michigan Water Resources Commission, Department of Conservation, Lansing, Mich 59 Olsen, Hon. Arnold, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana O'Neill, Hon. Thomas P., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 697 Orth, Franklin L., executive vice president, National Rifle Association of America 604 Penfold, J. W., conservation director, the Izaak Walton League of America 514 Pepper, Hon. Claude, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 656 Smith, Dr. Spencer M., Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources 524 Southeastern Dredge Owners Association, Cheaspeake, Va 670 Sport Fishing Institute, Philip A. Douglas, exe~utive secretary 509 Steiger, Hon. William A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 55 Terwilliger, E. S., vice president, Yach Safety Bureau, Inc 580 Towell, William E., executive vice president, the American Forestry Association Tupling, Lloyd, Washington representative, Sierra Club 521 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior 3 MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD- American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc.: Equipment Division Project Technical Committee Report No. A-S-Recommended practices and standards covering sewage holding and/or treatment devices for marine toilet waste in- cluding their installation 568 Recommended practices and standards for retention devices_ - - - 569 Recommended practices and standards for chemical maceration devices 570 Recommended practices and standards for incinerating devices - 571 Better Boating-Boatmen Face Head Problem in Chicago, by Carl F. Sheppard, from the Sunday Bulletin, Philadelphia, March 24, 1968 572 Sewage Pollution From River Towboats, by Harold I. Kurtz, vice president, operations, Thomas Petroleum Transit, Inc., Butler, Pa., presented at the October 7, 1966, meeting of the Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 573 Flotsam & Jetsam from December 1967 issue of the Skipper - - - 576 PAGENO="0006" VI Material received for tile record-Continued The Case for the Macerator-Chiorinator Devices for Sewage Page Treatment on Small Craft 579 "Testing for Safety Afloat" published by the Yacht Safety Bureau, 1966 585 Standards and recommended practices for sewage treatment devices for marine toilet waste, including their installation, project A-8 596 American Chemscience, Inc., A. J. Krell, president 683 American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., Ralph E. Casey, president, letter 709 American Public Health Association, Inc., Berwyn F. Mattison, M.D., executive director, letter 674 American Water Works Association, Inc., Henry J. Graeser, president, letter dated April 19, 1968, to Chairman Fallon 254 Boggs, Thomas Hale Jr., Boating Industry Association: Exhibit A-Engineering Manual of Recommended Practices - - - * Exhibit B-Report of the Pollution Study Committee National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 105 Appendix A-Questionnaire on Water Pollution by Recrea- tional Watercraft 112 Appendix B-Findings of Water Pollution Questionnaire Survey 114 Appendix C-A Model Act To Prohibit Littering and the Treatment of Untreated Sewage From Boats 117 Exhibit C-The National Sanitation Foundation Standard for Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices (Adopted Feb. 15, 1968)~ 120 Exhibit D-NASBLA Pollution Committee Resolution 126 Charts: State Approvals of Boat Sewage Treatment Devices~~ 127 Estimated Costs, Boat Sewage Treatment Installations 130 Exhibit E-A Bill To Regulate the Disposal of Sewage From Recreational Watercraft and To Prohibit Littering of Water- ways 131 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, James G. Watt, secretary, National Resources Committee, letter dated November 8, 1967, to Mr. Frank C. DiLuzio, Assistant Secretary, Water Pollution Control, U.S. Department of the Interior 144 Reply 144 "Chemical Removal of Phosphorus Feasible" from the Chemical & Engineering News 345 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Thomas C. McMahon, letter re H.R. 15907 712 Consulting Engineers Council of New York State, Inc., Harold E. Rist, president, letter 487 Conte, Hon. Silvio 0., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, letter and statement from Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control 483 Covingson & Burling; Edward Dunkelberger, April 4, 1968, letter to the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, opinion re water quality standards under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 158 Davis, Hon. Ilus W., mayor, Kansas City, Mo., letter~ 676 Department of State, William B. Macomber, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, letters from Danish, Royal Norwegian, and Royal Swedish Embassies 662 Delaware River Basin Commission, James F. Wright, executive director: Letter dated 1\'Iay 2, 1968, re April 24 testimony presented by Oil Pollution Industry 665 Letter dated May 17, 1968, re HR. 16852 714 Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, letter to Chairman Fallon re HR. 15907 352 Eutrophic Sidelights, by John F. Kinney, contributing editor, from August 1967 issue of Industrial Water Engineering 550 Eutrophichtion: A Big Word in Water Management, from June 1967 issue of Industrial ~Vater Engineering 553 *Cornmittee files. PAGENO="0007" VII Material received for the record-Continued Page Federal Water Pollution Control Act draft, February 15, 1968 547 Great Lakes Commission, Leonard J. Goodsell, executive diiector, letter and resolution 679 Hercules, Inc., S. I-I. Hellekson, general manager, other reuse of polyelectrolytes on the separation of solids from liquid suspensions - 352 Huron River Watershed Council, Jerome K. Fulton, executive secre- tary, letter to Congressman Esch Love, Hon. John A., Governor o~ the State of Colorado, letter dated February 23, 1968, to Secretary of the Interior Udall re Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 152 Missouri Water Pollution Control Board, Department of Public Health and Welfare, Jack K. Smith, executive secretary, letter 488 Moran, Hon. W. B., mayor, city of Shawnee, Okla., letter 678 Myers, Ira L., M.D., chairman, Water Improvement Commission, State of Alabama, letter dated February 27, 1968, re water quality standards 155 New England Water Pollution Control Commission comments on HR. 15907 626 Ocean Eagle Incident, a report by the Petroleum Emergency Office, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 296 Ohio Valley Improvement Association, Inc., William J. Hull, president, letter 711 Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, Anthony Maggocchi, director, Citizenship-Legislative Department, letter submitting statement by the Nassau County Planning Commission 664 Pacific American Steamship Association, Ralph B. Dewey, president, letter 662 Phoenix, Ariz., Sam Steiger, mayor, letter re HR. 15907 and S. 3206 - 488 Principles and Guide to Practices in the Control of Acid Mine-Drain- age, compiled by the Coal Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 189 Railroad Commission of Texas, Jim C. Langdon, chairman, letters 674, 678 Shipbuilders Council of America, Edwin M. Hood, president, 1etter~ 673 Sport Fishing Institute, Philip A. Douglas, executive secretary: Letter re H.R. 15907 482 Letter re H.R. 16852 715 Statement of Policy on Water Pollution Control in the United States-Adopted by the Board of Control of the Water Pollution Control Federation, October 8, 1967 479 State of Colorado Department of Public Health, Frank Rozich, P. E., technical secretary, letter 486 State of Maryland Department of Health, Environmental Health Services, James B. Coulter, assistant commissioner, letter 675 State of New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Com- mission, W' illiam A. Healy, executive director, letter to Hon. James C. Cleveland on proposed water pollution control legislation 625 Status of Mine Drainage Technology, by E. A. Zawadzki, of Bi- tuminous Coal Research, Inc. 219 Tax Incentives for Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities, by James G. Watt, secretary, Natural Resources Committee and Environmental Pollution Advisory Panel, Community and Regional Resource Development Group, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, presented to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pol- lution Control Administrators at its annual meeting in Hartford, Conn., on December 13, 1967 145 The role of the States in Regard to the Setting of Water Quality Standards Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to be considered for adoption by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems 536' Treatment of Pulp and Papermill Wastes in Publicly Owned Facilities, by Dr. Isaiah Gellman, assistant technical director, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., paper presented at annual meeting of members, technical session, National Council for Stream Improvement, Inc., Feb- ruary 20, 1968, New York, N.Y.. 330 PAGENO="0008" VIII Material received for the record-Continued University of Puerto Rico Department of Marine Sciences, Maximo J. Cerame-Vivas, director, preliminary report by Dr. Graham S. Giese, physical oceanographer, of the activities during the Ocean Pag~ Eagle disaster 301 U.S. Coast Guard: Draft language to remove the limitation in H. R. 15906 that actions arising outside the continental United States be brought in district courts where the actions arise rather than where an offending vessel may be found 9 Draft language to establish Federal preemption for vessel stand- ards and requirements promulgated under H.R. 15906 Draft language for H.R. 15906 and S. 2760 regarding oil cleanup authority Draft language for H.R. 16207 (H.R. 13923, S. 2525) for division of regulatory authority consistent with division contemplated with regard to S. 2760 and related bills 9C Department of Transportation, memorandum of April 18, 1968, to Mr. Orville Watkins, administrative assistant to Hon. Santiago Polanco-Abreu, subject: Marine Casualties, San Juan 30( U.S. Department of the Interior: letter dated March 4, 1968, from Hon. Stewart Udall, Secretary, to Hon. James A. Rhodes, Gov- ernor of Ohio, re Ohio water quality standards 15( Letter of reply 15( Letter dated February 15, 1968, to Hon. Lurleen Wallace, Gover- nor of the State of Alabama re Alabama water quality standards 154 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Commerce data re "Gross proceeds from new securities offered for cash in the United States" (table) 264 "Water Pollution by Sewage from Watercraft * * * Another View- point," paper prepared by William H. Smyers, Jr., chief research engineer, the New Britain Machine Co., New Britain, Conn 47~ Wilson Water Purification Corp., F. E. Wilson, letter 68~ Zwach, John M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, letter 48 Proceedings of- April 23, 1968 :1 April 24, 1968~_~. 261 April 25, 1968 41~ May 2, 1968 60 PAGENO="0009" FEDERAL WATER' POLLIJTION CONTROL ACT AMEND MENTS-1968 TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1968 HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITrEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington,D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.rn., in room ~167, Rayburn Building, the Hon. John A. Blatnik presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The Committee on Public Works will please come to order. We meet this morning to hear testimony over a 3-day period on administration bills H.R. 15906, and H.R. 15907, by Mr. Fallon, chair- man of the full Committee on Public Works. We also have S. 2760, passed by the Senate last December. We have summary bills which should be listed in the record at this point by House bill number, and name and brief title descriptions or purposes, almost 10 or 12 in number, `all related to the general subject. (The listing of the bills follow:) ER. 15906, by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Blatnik; H.R. 15928, by Mr. Howard; H.R. 16015, by Mr. Polanco-Abreu; HR. 16163, by Mr. Pepper. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollu- tion Control Act). H.R. 16559, by Mr. Keith, Mr. Boland, Mr. Bates, Mr. O'Neill, Mr.' Halpern, Mr. Kupferman, Mr. Duiski, Mr. McClory, and Mr. Blackburn; H.R. 15907, by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Blatnik. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, relating to the construction of waste treatment works, and to the conduct of water pollution control research, and for other purposes (Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968). `S. 2760 (Passed Senate Dec. 12, 1967); H.R. 14000, by Mr. Nedzi. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize research and demonstration programs for the control of lake pollution and acid and other mine water drainage, and to prevent pollution of water by oil. H.R. 13923, by Mr. Fallon, by request; H.R. 16207, by Mr. Blatnik. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to control pollution from vessels within the navigable waters of the United States. H.R. 7234, by Mr. Kupferman. To provide that plans and regulations estab- lished pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the control of water pollution shall apply to vessels (including boats) and marinas. H.R. 494, by Mr. Dingell. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to strengthen and improve authority to enforce abatement of pollution, to provide for filing of notice with respect to discharge of matter into interstate or navigable waters and to require permits to regulate such discharge of matter, and for other purposes. H.R. 5735, by Mr. Morse. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize grants for the maintenance of certain treatment works. H.R. 16044, by Mr. Dingell. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize certain grants for assisting in improved operation of waste treat- ment plants. (1) PAGENO="0010" 2 H.P~. 13852, by Mr. Pucinski. To amend section 4 of the act of March 3, 1905, to prohibit the dumping of certain spoil into the Great Lakes. HR. 13708, by Mr. Rostenkowski. To abate the pollution of the Great Lakes and other navigable waters of the United States from sewage, wastes, oils, and detergents and to encourage water pollution control. H.R. 2109, by Mr. Horton; H.R. 11119, by Mr. Mosher. To provide grants for assistance in the research and development of methods to abate pollution of the water of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. H.R. 13407, by Mr. Zwach; H.R. 13794, by Mr. Brown, of Michigan; H.R. 16257, by Mr. Blackburn. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to authorize comprehensive pilot programs in lake pollution prevention and control. H.R. 10751, by Mr. Hanley. To amend section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a research and demonstration program for the improvement of the quality of the Nation's lake waters. H.R. 13064, by Mr. Langen. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize certain grants for rehabilitation of the lakes of the United States. HR. 13312, by Mr. Steiger, of Wisconsin; H.R. 13638, by Mr. Dow; H.R. 13665, by Mr. Vander Jagt; H.R. 13853, by Mr. Riegle; H.R. 14002, by Mr. Reuss; H.R. 14153, by Mr. Ruppe. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to authorize a program of research and demonstration for the control of pollution in lakes. H.R. 13396, by Mr. Kupferman. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Act to establish research and planning programs with respect to the prevention and res- toration of eutrophic lakes. H.R. 3342, by Mr. Talcott. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require certain studies of the pollution of the Monterey Bay and adjacent waters, and to prohibit the operation of any interceptor drain so as to pollute such waters. H.R. 8380, by Mr. Cramer. To amend section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to abatement of pollution from Federal installations. H.R. 8752, by Mr. Eilberg; H.R. 8759, by Mr. McCarthy. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish standards and programs to abate and control water pollution by synthetic detergents. H.R. 17, by Mr. Horton. To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to establish an incentive award program for industries, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of States which demonstrate excellence in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. OPENING STATEMENT Mr. BLATNIK. I have a brief statement `which I would like to read now. Our continuing concern for `clean water brings our attention to a number of bills pending before this `committee. Particular emphasis will he placed on the growing ne~d for the prevention, removal and control of pollution on our lakes, the devastating effects of oil pollu- tion as demonstrated by the oil spills of the now famed Torrey Canyon tanker, and the proposed new debt financing of waste treatment con- struction `plants. We `appreciate the talent and the time `of the cross- section `of witnesses tha.t have `responded and will soon give us the benefit of their knowledge. From the reservoir of information gathered from this hearing and from `a variety of `other sources, w~e seek to make meaningful improve- ment in the quailitv of the Nation's `water by expanding and in some instances tightening our water pollution `control legislation. The `call `for clean water `is becoming louder and louder as com- munities and industries demand more water. Congress has answered this call `by unanimously passing `two historic pieces of legislation in PAGENO="0011" 3 the form of the 1965 Water Quality Act and the Cleaii Water Restora- tion Act of 1966. The President has responded with a clear mandate for diean water. So from every edhelon ai~d from every wa~1k of like response ~s being ~heard in answer to tlie call `for clean water. We have come a long way since the first national water pollution control legislation was first hammered out right here in this commit- tee. We are now gearing up for the national effort to clean up our all- important waters. Generations of gross neglect have finally caught up with us and we are faced with the moment of truth. As we start these hearings, there are encouraging signs that we are winning the cause for clean water. But there is so much to be done and we need to nmster strength from every corner. Much of that strength to bolster and to buttress the cause for clean water at every level will come from concerned people like yourselves. We appreciate your co- operation and look forward to your contribution in the strides forward for clean water. We would like to welcome our former colleague, the distm'guished Secretary of Interior Stewart TJdall, `and your distinguished panel of experts which include: Max Edwards, Assistant Secretary of Interior for Water Pollution Control; Joe G. Moore, Jr., Commissioner of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of Interior; Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget; and David Finnegan, Assistant Legislative Counsel with the Depart- ment of Interior. Mr. Secretary, will you please proceed at will, and you will be open to questions, and questions directed to areas of specific interest, con- cern, or need clarification, either you or your associates can handle it. Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. MAX N. EDWARDS, ASSIST- ANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL; HON. JOE G. MOORE, JR., COMMISSIONER, YEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; PHILIP S. HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BU- REAU OF THE BUDGET; AND DAVID FINNEGAN, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COU1~SEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Secretary TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. I would like for it to appear in its entirety in the record as if read. Mr. BLATNIK. It will be so included. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. TJDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I welcome this opportunity to appear, in response to your invitation, to discuss with the committee the need for new legislation to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of the Nation's waters. It has been not quite two years since I became, with the assent of Congress, the Federal officer with primary responsibility to protect the quality of America's PAGENO="0012" 4 water resources-. Your role, Mr. Chairman, and that of this committee, reaches back to the origins of the national water pollution control program. The Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act, which became permanent law in 1956, and the strengthening amendments of 1961, 1965, and 1966, are in no small measure the products of your deliberations. The Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 provided new and expanded authorities for an all-out assault on the pollution of our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. But the enormity `and the complexity of the water pollution problem, and the heavy demands on the Federal budget, deny us a period of consolidation, devoted to the effective implementation of our enlarged responsibilities. Conditions call for further legislation. The law must be sufficient to the task. You have before you major clean water legislation proposed by the Adminis- tration: the "Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968" (H. R. 15907), the "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act `of 1968" (H. R. 15906 and identical bills), and legislation to control pollution from vessels within the navigable waters of the United States (H. R. 13923 and H. R. 16207). Addi- tionally, we urge the enactment of S. 2760, already passed by the Senate, which deals with important aspects of the oil pollution problem, as well as with lake eutrophication and acid and other mine water pollution. I have already conveyed to Congress by letter the Administration's support of these proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Each is addressed to one or more parts of the total water pollution problem. Today I want to discuss the need for: (1) Federal assistance to construct waste treatment works by a method which supplements the present grant pro- gram; (2) more effective means to cope with pollution by oil and other hazard- ous `substances; (3) a program for the control of pollution from vessels; and (4) legislation to control pollution of `lakes and to control pollution from acid and other mine drainage. THE "WATEB QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1068" No conservation measure before Congress today is more important, in my judgment than this bill, introduced in the House as H. R. 15907. The Water Quality Act of 1965 called for the establishment of enforceable State water quality standards on all interstate and coastal waters. Over half the State standards have now been approved. The rest will soon be approved. These standards include implementation plans which call for the construction of needed waste treatment works on a timely basis. But these works will cost money-large sums of money. The recent Interior report. "The Cost of Clean Water," states that the "cost of constructing municipal waste tr~atment plants and `interceptor `sewers is estimated at $8.0 billion, exclusive of land and ,associ~ sited costs" over the next five years. We have some indications that these initial estimates may be conservative. Whatever these costs finally turn out to be, the fact remain's that these facilities will be needed or communities will not meet the schedules of the water qu~a'lity standards and will face State and Federal en- forcement actions. One c'an readily see that, to `implement the water quality standards program on the basis of the schedules contained in the State standards which have been approved, there is an urgent need `to provide adequate funds to finance the municipal construction phase of the Standards program. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 is the cornerstone of this program. In enacting the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, Congress unanimously authorized $3.4 billion for grants for municipal waste treatment plants for fiscal years 1968-1971. $203 million was appropriated this fiscal year, compared with an authorization of $450 million. The President's budget for the next fiscal year contains $225 million, compared to $700 million authorized. The Administration believes that the Federal Government is committed to help localities meet large water pollution expenditures now. H.R. 15907 wIll enable us to commit the full $700 million authorized for fiscal year 1969. Instead of the program's being funded entirely by direct grants, as is now the case, we are proposing that there be added to the existing program a contract approach aimed primarily at the larger urban areas. Specifically: 1. The bill would authorize long-term contracts-up to 30 years-with States and local public bodies. These contracts could be Initiated once a level of con- tractual authority is established in an Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1969. PAGENO="0013" 5 These contracts would be binding obligations of the United States. Once executed, appropriations to liquidate them would be automatic. 2. These contracts could be pledged by the States or local public bodies as security for bonds issued by them to cover the cost of the treatment plants, in- cluding the Federal share. 3. Under the contracts the Federal Government would pay the principal and interest on that portion of the bonds that represents the normal Federal grant share under the present Act. The contracts would also provide a Federal guar- antee of the non-Federal share and the payment of an interest subsidy to reduce the net effective interest rate to Sta4es and localities to a rate reasonably comparable to rates on ntx-exempt municipal bonds. 4. The bill provides that the interest on bonds issued to construct these plants shall not be exempt from Federal income taxation. Let me emphasize that this non-tax-exempt feature is a major element of this very important legislation. It is, however, not intended as an "opening wedge" precedent, as some have contended, to do away with tax-exempt bonds. I cannot emphasize this point too strongly. This provision is important for three reasons: First, the bill provides for a Federal guarantee of the entire bond, even the local share, and for an annual Federal payment of principal and interest on part of them. It would not be good policy to apply this guarantee to tax-exempt bonds. We believe that the Federal guarantee would have the effect of lowering the risk, equivalent to a triple-A bond rating for the communities concerned. Second, without this provision, we are convinced that the proposal could add substantially to the volume of new issues of tax-exempt bonds by State and local public bodies. This would be particularly undesirable in view of the already large volume of municipal bond issues and the current high interest rates which States and localities are required to pay. Making the proposed new bonds tax- able rather than tax-exempt would avoid adding to pressures on the municipal bond market and would thus result in significant savings in interest costs to States and localities on their borrowings for other urgent needs such as schools, roads, and other public facilities. Third, the use of taxable rather than tax-exempt bonds would also be signif- icantly cheaper for the Federal Government, even with the interest subsidy. The reason is that, as public and private studies have demonstrated, tax-exemption costs more to the Federal Government in lost revenues than communities gain in lower interest costs. Therefore it is possible for the Federal Government to give communities an equivalent interest subsidy and still save money. 5. The contracts would be available where the waste treatment system, not the particular project, serves 125,000 people or more or serves all or part of a standard metropolitan statistical area. In our cost study, we indicated that there is a pressing need to upgrade waste treatment facilities in our major metropolitan areas. The program, which is designed primarily to meet urban requirements, also would cover smaller com- munities which form a part of, or are contiguous to, larger metropolitan areas. It is our hope that this legislation will encourage metropolitan or regional waste collection and treatment. 6. The bill would also require the establishment of a system of user charges which would be sufficient to amortize the local share, pay operation and main- tenance costs, and establish a reasonable reserve to meet planned expansion needs. The term, user charge, implies a utility function and consequently a relation. ship between the payment required and the cost of providing the service. In addition, economic efficiency and equity would be more fully served if the charge paid by users of the system reflected the costs which this use imposes on the system. The user charge has attained particular validity in current times because of the movement from old practices in waste disposal to a new level of municipal sanitation reflected in the provision of sewage treatment works, and because of the high costs of local government in general. The charge permits the separation of sewage treatment function from the much pressed property tax. It relates the costs of service more closely to the users, manifesting a more equitable distri- bution of the costs of government among the members of the community As the costs of local government continue to rise, and as the pressures on the over- loaded tax bases of local government mount, the merits of user charges for sewer- age service should become increasingly apparent. Further, user charges require PAGENO="0014" 6 industrial firms to pay an equitable share of treatment costs, and provide them an incentive to reduce their wastes through pretreatment, process changes, and better management of wastes. We envision too, that such charges will also be needed to pay the local share of bonds. 7. The bill provides that not more than ten percent of the funds available for contracts could be obligated in any one State. Contract funds not obligated in one year carry over to the succeeding year and are added to the total contractual authority for that year. We recognize that this is a departure from the a]location formula approach now in the Act. But we believe that this change is important, if the Federal Government really means to meet its commitment to the highly urbanized areas of the country with the greatest water pollution control needs. We fully expect that the smaller communities of the Nation, which are not eligible under the contract approach, will use the direct grant method to finance construction. 8. In 1966 `Congress added to the Act a provision which was intendOd to encourage communities to proceed with the construction of treatment works without a Federal grant or only a partial one. We would approve the project and the community would, usually with State help, finance it. They could then seek reimbursement for the Federal share from allocations available for grants prior to July 1, 1971. The 1966 amendment made it very clear, however, that approval of the project could not be construed, at any time, as an obligation or commitment of the Federal Government to provide funds for the project. As of April 1, 1968, 379 funded or partially funded projects have been approved. These could receive a total Federal payment of about $215 million when, and if, the money is available for such payment. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 is designed to replace the 1966 amendment after July 1, 1968, without affecting eligible projects already ap- proved. We recognize that some States, like New York, have initiated a program with some reliance on this reimbursement provision. We believe, however, that these States will realize that the contract approach is a vast improvement because it gives the community more than a fond hope of payment. It gives them a commitment or obligation of the Federal Government. In our view, this should be fare more acceptable than the reimbursement feature now in the Act. In addition to these features or HR. 15907, the bill would reorder and extend the Act's present provisions relating to research, demonstrations, in- vestigations, training, and information. The Administration views this legislation as a vital stimulant to attain water quality standards. It is, in our opinion, a realistic way to clean up water pol- luton within a reasonable time framework. It is designed to help our urban areas-the majors, city managers-the county officials, and the governors- meet the ever-mounting costs of rescuing the Nation's waterways and restoring them to acceptable levels of purity. CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER HAzARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION FROM VESSELS AND SHORE INSTALLATIONS In many respects, the problems of vessel pollution, oil pollution, and spills of other hazardous substances are closely related. All may come from the same sources, may be intermittent in nature, may occur at almost any point in or near navigable waters, and may result in damages ranging from the almost invisible to the deadly or catastrophic. The Torrey Canyon disaster and the recent breakup of the Ocean Eagle in San Juan Harbor have increased public awareness of the problem. The Report of the President, "Oil Pollution," prepared jointly by the Depart- ment of the Interior and the Department `of Transportation in 1967, concerns problems of pollution from spills of oil `and other hazardous substances. `The 1967 Report to Congress, "Wastes from `Watercraft," (Senate Document No. 48, 90th `Congress, 1st Session), considers pollution resulting from `the operation of vessels of all `types. The Oil Pollution Report was prepared at the President's direction in the wake of the Torrey Canyon disaster and other oil pollution incid'ents. The Report sug- gests a number of legislative needs to strengthen Federal authority to prevent and control spills: (1) amendments to the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, to extend coverage to all spills whether or not they are grossly negligent or willful, to spills from all sources, PAGENO="0015" 7 and to spills within the Contiguous Zone, as well as within the territorial sea and navigable waters of the United States; (2) legislation to require an oil discharger to pay all of the costs, of removing the oil, incurred by the Secretary of the Interior; (3) legislation to make the person who discharges or deposits hazardous sub- stances other than oil into navigable waters or the Contiguous Zone responsible for removing the substance, and to empower the Secretary of the Interior to act if such person fails to act, and to recover the costs. Oil Pollution Provisions of ~. 2760 S. 2760, passed by the Senate and now before you, would fulfill the Report's recommendations relating to the control of oil pollution in the navigable waters of the United States. It would repeal the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, and incorporate its provisions, with strengthening changes, into the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act. Most of these changes were recommended by the Administration last June. The bill would: (1) Delete the requirement that a "discharge" be "grossly negligent or willful" before liability attaches; (2) Limit criminal penalties to cases in which the discharge was due to a willful act; (3) Apply civil penalties to all discharges except emergencies imperiling life or property, unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, the last two to apply only to vessels; (4) Expand the Act's coverage to shore installations; (5) Specifically include in its coverage Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa; (6) Require the owners of vessels and shore installations to remove discharged oil from navigable waters and adjoining shorelines or to pay the cleanup costs in all cases except where the discharge was caused by an Act of God. Thus, the discharger has the responsibility to clean up the oil under our direc- tion. We would only act where he fails to meet his responsibility. The Govern- ment can then recover its cost and, in the case of a vessel, the ow-ner cannot limit his liability. We realize that this clean-up provision is quite severe, but we believe there is a clear and present need for this authority as recently demonstrated in Puerto Rico. We hope that it will make those in charge of tankers and shore installa- tions more conscious of their responsibility to the Nation to prevent damage to its natural resources. Those who control the oil should be responsible for bear- ing this cost rather than the public. (7) Authorize appropriations to a revolving fund to enable the Secretary in finance such clean-up measures. In my letter of March 8, 1968, to this Committee, I recommended certain amendments to this portion of 5. 2760 in order to facilitate administration of these provisions. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify certain provisions of the bill and to delineate more precisely the respective roles of the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies. We believe quite strongly that the Coast Guard and other agencies must be given a big role in making the legislation work. The "Oil an4 Hazardous ~S'ubstance Pollution Control Act of 1968" The oil pollution control portion of 5. 2760 is a major step toward closing yet another chink in our pollution control armor. However, the bill does not reach certain aspects of the recommendations in the Oil Pollution Report. The "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1968," before you as H.R. 15906 and identical bills, addresses itself to additional key areas not covered in 5. 2760. 5. 2760 and H.R. 15906 are complementary. They do not overlap, but, taken together, they extend our ability to control oil pollution to the Contiguous Zone, the nine-mile strip of ocean beyond our territorial waters, which was established by an International Convention on September 10, 1964. The bill would further provide for the clean up of large or unusually hazard- ous discharges of pollutants other than oil. The Water Quality Act of 1965 author- izes the Secretary of the Interior to request the Attorney General to bring suit to secure abatement of pollution which reduces the quality of interstate waters below established water quality standards. However, the legal procedure neces- sarily delays abatement action for at least six months. Thus, the Federal Gov- èrnment now lacks authority tO cope with large and unusually hazardous dis- charges of material, such as those which occurred recently on the Clinch River PAGENO="0016" 8 in Virginia and at Dunreith, Indiana, as they occur and before they do greal damage. Immediate action is important for containment, and for the control oi spills of hazardous substances. The clean-up authority is similar to that applicable to oil. It Is not, however applicable to all discharge of matter, but only to those of sufficient quantity t( warrant a finding by the Secretary of the Interior that the discharge or threatenec discharge presents an imminent and substantial hazard to the public health oi welfare. Control of Pollution from Vessels Vessels-watercraft of widely varying types-are included in the category 01 the migratory polluter. Sanitary wastes, litter, bilge pumpage, and polluted bal last discharges are among the kinds of pollutants emanating from these sources Watercraft wastes are highly visible, offensive to the senses, and often have n pollution effect disproportionate to their quantity. H.R. 13923 and H.R. 1620~ embody the legislative action which we believe is required to mount a com- prehensive attack on vessel pollution. Pollution of waters by watercraft discharges is widespread. Boats and vessels move from point to point in the Nation's waters and may cause local pollution at any point in their travels. Pleasure craft gathering for a weekend of fur or during a holiday, may suddenly impose a load of untreated wastes on receiving waters equivalent to those from a small community. Vessels traveling to and from foreign ports may well transport organisms which can reinfect oui environment. Today, there are approximately 46,000 documented commercial vessels, 65,00( nondocumented commercial fishing vessels, 1,500 Federal vessels, and 800000 recreational watercraft using the navigable waters of the United States. TherE are, in addition, almost 40,000 foreign ship entrances through Customs recorded each year in these waters. The 8,000,000 recreational watercraft are served by some 5,500 marinas, many with satellite facilities such as restraurants, boatels~ and shore-based sanitary facilities located across the Nation. The following pollution problems stem from these watercraft sources: Publio health is threatened.-I quote an excerpt from a January 1968 reporl by the U.S. Public Health Service: "The fecal material from boats has a mud different public health significance than municipal sewage, whether treated ot untreated. Fresh fecal material contains pathogens which when introduced into the growing area have not had time to become less viable as those In s sewage system." Paraphrased, pathogens (i.e., disease causing organisms) ar~ more active in fecal material from watercraft than those discharged froni municipal sewage systems due to the freshness of such discharges. Shellfish harvesting is curtailed.-For reasons of pathogen concentration by the shellfish, some States (Virginia as an example) prohibit shellfish harvesting where there is appreciable watercraft traffic nearby. Drinking water for millions of Americans can be threatened by waste dis- charges from watercraft.-Except where the Interstate Quarantine Regulatiom prohibit the discharge of vessel wastes, including bilge and ballast waters in close proximity to a public water supply intake on the Great Lakes, there is nc protection under existing Federal authority for the many water supplies drawn from our inland waterways and other lakes. The aesthetic character of our waterways mry be threatened or destroyed-ThE total number of boat passages Is almost countless. Yet, all boats serve as possibh vehicles for litter pollution during each and every passage. Uncounted tons ol refuse and trash from these floating platforms wash up on pleasure beaches an~ the bottom shore lines of our lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastline. Further, th( unsightllnesS of floating fecal material in contact water sport areas needs n~ elaboration. No single control mechanism of watercraft pollution exists today over this Na tion's waterways. To be sure, there Is some State regulation, but this is, for thE most part, imperfect and certainly nonuniform. The inadequacy of these controh can be demonstrated by the needs of watercraft using public waterways. A barge tow plowing its way down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers fron pittsburgh to New Orleans may pass through the jurisdiction of it States A coastal freighter may touch as many as 25 harbors In 20 State jurisdic- tions between Portland, Maine, and Portland, Oregon. The pleasure boater, whose number is increasing by more than 200,00C owners per year, poses the same problem since the ubiquitous boating publi often travels or trailers watercraft from one jurisdiction to another. PAGENO="0017" 9 Essentially, each and every one of these watercraft operators needs `a uniform set of waste control regulations and approved treatment or control devices. Voluntary compliance to recommended regulations produces only partial con- trol and, as a result, is patently unfair to those who have acted responsibly. H.R. 13923 and H.R. 16207 include measures which, when enacted and fully imple- mented, should rectify many of the problems I have cited. 1. The bill would apply to foreign and domestic vessels, and to the navigable waters and the Contiguous Zone. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish, by regulation, standards for the control of sewage emitting from vessels. The standards will be developed after an extensive investigation and research effort is carried out to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of various systems for the treatment of sewage from vessels, including a careful study of the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining such systems on various classes of vessels. The standards will be as uniform as possible for various classes of vessels within similar circumstances. The regulations will set reasonable compliance schedules. These schedules will distinguish `between new vessels and existing vessels. Special consideration will be given to those vessels that included sewage control systems on board to meet State requirements or the voluntary `levels of treatment established in the 1965 Handbook on Sanitation and Vessel Construction of the United States Public Health Service. 2. The bill directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations governing the dis- charge of ballast and bilge water into such waters from vessels engaged in commerce. They will apply to all commercial type vessels. The regulations will limit the quantity of such discharges and the time and place of the discharges. The regulations will not necessarily prohibit all such discharges in all our waterways. 3. The bill directs the Secretary to issue regulations governing the discharge of litter, garbage, sludge, and other substances, other than oil and drege spoil, from vessels whether such substance originates on the vessel or is transported by the vessel. 4. Before the Secretary issues any regulations, he must consult with Defense and other interested Federal and State agencies and representatives of various interested industries. After the regulations are issued, the Secretary is required to give everyone a reasonable opportunity to comment before they become final. 5. The bill would authorize the Secretary to exempt certain classes of vessels. Defense and other Federal vessels must comply with the regulations, except where national security is involved. 6. Once the standards are issued, a program for certifying the adequacy of various devices will be initiated. Under this program manufacturers may request the Secretary to consider a particular device together with the manufacturer's test data to determine whether such a device, if installed on a vessel and used and maintained properly, will enable the vessel to conform with `the standards. Once certified by the Secretary, the manufacturer will be able to sell as certified all devices that conform to the certification. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation, operating through the United States Coast Guard, must also certify the device from a safety standpoint. The Secretary of Transportation will issue regulations on this subject. 7. After the effective date of the regulations, it will be unlawful to pollute the navigable waters of the United States from vessels and to make any dis- charges from vessels into such waters, except in accordance with the regulations. 8. The bill establishes penalties for violations. Detailed information about the problem to which H.R. 13923 and HR. 16207 are directed is contained in the report, "Wastes from Watercraft," submitted to Congress last summer in compliance with Section 17 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. The basis for computing waste loads from recreational watercraft used in the report has been challenged. We estimated that 1,340,000 recreational water- craft were equipped with sanitary facilities, a figure reached by averaging two closely related figures estimated from industry and Coast Guard data. We realize that the estimate is based on Incomplete information. The report states, at page 50 of the Senate Document, that no statistical information is available on the number of recreational watercraft equipped with sanitary facilities, and that our derivation must be clearly labeled as an estimate of the pollution poten- 94-376-GS-------2 PAGENO="0018" 10 tial of such craft and used only as a guide to their gross pollution potential. Even if the figure 1,340,000 is too high, we must recognize that the waste load from recreational watercraft constitutes a significant problem. OTHER PROVISIONS OF S. 2760 LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM ACID AND OTHER MINE DRAINAGE In addition to its oil pollution control provisions, which I have discussed, S. 2760, as passed by the Senate, would give the Secretary of the Interior specific authority to make grants to or enter into contracts with public or private agencies and organizations and individuals to- (1) Develop and demonstrate new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and control of natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including unde- sirable nutrient and vegetation effects; and (2) Carry out projects to demonstrate feasible and practical techniques of eliminating or controlling acid or other mine water pollution. The bill would also authorize the Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to enter into agreements with States to carry out projects to demon- strate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality of various techniques for the elimination or control of acid or other water pollution from active or abandoned mines within all or part of a watershed or drainage area. Appropriate feasibility studies would be required, preference given to areas with greatest present or potential public value for public uses, and assurance re- quired that the project area will not be affected adversely by mine pollution from nearby sources. An appropriation of $15 million would be authorized for this purpose. Lake eutrophication and acid and other mine water drainage are two sig- nificant pollution problems to which the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin- istration is directing vigorous efforts. We would welcome the directives found in 5. 2760 for accelerated activities in these areas. We are deeply concerned about the premature aging of the Nation's lakes, from the vast reaches of Lake Michigan and Lake Erie to the countless small lakes to which our people look for recreation and beauty. We are deeply concerned about the old and lingering problem of acid mine drainage. I would be glad to give the committee any in- formation beyond that found in my March 8 letter on S. 2760 concerning these provisions of the bill, on the problems to which they are addressed, and on our present and projected atcivities for the control of these difficult water pollu- tion problems. CONCLUSION The President, in his recent Message to Congress, "To Renew a Nation," set forth a priority agenda for action to meet the dangers which threaten our en- vironment. Key items on that agenda are the subjects of legislation before you today-the financing of community waste treatment plants to prosecute the war on water pollution with conviction, and the protection of waters, beaches, and coasts against the devastation of oil spillage and other hazardous sub- stances. I urge this committee, which acted for clean water well before the national awakening to the threat of pollution, to act again, at this session of Congress, to protect the Nation's waters from the ravages of pollution. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the record a discussion of the role of the Department of the Interior and more particularly the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the field of oil pollution control during the past year. A DIsCussIoN OF THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTJ:ON CONTROL ADMINISTRATION IN THE FIELD 01? OIL POLLUTION CONTROL DURING THE PAST YEAR WRITTEN STATEMENT BY SECRETARY UDALL The Department of the Interior has major responsibilites for the protection of various natural resources and within the Department, the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration has a special responsibility for protecting our greatest natural resource-water-from pollution. This responsibility extends to all of the waters of the United States and is not limited by whether or not that PAGENO="0019" 11 ater has the capability of being used by vessels. Preteotion of this natural source requires a special blending of talents, capabilities, and expertise, a mbination which is only rarely found except in a water pollution control ~ganization. The Department of the Interior and the Federal Water Pollution Control dm'in~stration need the support of agencies such as the Coast Guard with the en, equipment, and logistic know how to implement reaction programs when a ajor oil spill occurs on our coasts, in our estuaries, our Great Lakes, and ~ssibly the major navigable streams of this Nation. These capatillties comple- ent the resources of the Department of the Interior to make an effective team. ~e view our role as the agency responsible for protection of our natural re- )urces. As such, we have technical expertise capable of making the necessary idgments on courses of action to take to assure maximum protection of these [tal water and water oriented resources. No pat answer is available which can catalogued on how to react to a specific spill situation, although general urses of action can be developed. There are son~e areas in which our authorities, as outlined in the roposed legislation, and the authorities of the U.S. Coast Guard may seem to verlap under certain conditions. Over the past several months, we have discussed us matter with the Department of Transportation and we are in agreement uat the proposed legislation makes a realistic division of responsibility be- veen the two Departments. Whenever a situation arises that crosses the ~sponsibility interface, it will be bridged by cooperative effort; the FWPCA roviding its technical expertise in the physical sciences related to water ollution control, and the Coast Guard providing its expertise in naval matters. Spill pollution control from fixed sources for oil and other hazardous sub- tinces cannot be predicted finitely. Prevention through State control require- ients, if irniformity across the Nation can be assumed, can go a long way )\vards minimizing their occurrence but cannot eliminate them. Today, the tates generally lack clean-up authority for such spills and have little in the way f developed reaction capability. Since spills, even occurring on intrastate ~reams, can and do affect interstate waters (e.g., Clinch River in Virginia- ennessee), there is a vital need to provide a reaction capability to stop these pills in their tracks. A well-conceived contingency plan incorporating immediate lean-up fund expenditure capability is a prime requirement. This clean-up uthority must be available on a river basin basis and not be encumbered by iffuse jurisdictions if spill pollution control is to be effective. We view this gain as a complementary tool to the various State and Federal agency interests nd authorities which is not available today but which is needed. During the past twelve months, the Department of the Interior-largely hrough FWPCA-has been developing added capabilities for the control of oil pills and exerting substantial influence towards preventing and minimizing the ifects of such spills. Let me cite only a few of those various activities. This Department in conjunction with the Department of Transportation pre- ared the report, "Oil Pollution." This report is really a landmark document s its preparation necessitates some deep and searching reappraisals by both )epartments and brought forth actions toward the control of the problem. We have prepared preliminary contingency plans for coping with spills of oil :r other hazardous substances in each of our nine FWPCA regions. In preparing hese plans, we have conferred with the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, he States, industries and others; considered oil spill potentials from pipelines, ank farms and other sources as well as from vessels and related shore facilities; onsidered the spill potentials of other hazardous materials; and made a survey f diked waste storage from the standpoint of spill pollution potentials. These lans are not complete today, and I hope we will never consider them to be omplete for to be effective they must be living documents, ever changing and mproving to meet today's and tomorrow's needs and conditions. We have prepared a prototype contingency plan using the Potomac River as ts example. This plan will, of course, have value in protecting the Potomac ut will be principally used to ensure that the FWPCA plans in each Region nd basin meet certain minimums of excellence and utility. Even these preliminary contingency plans have been effective in guiding our fforts in many spill pollution incidents. The most publicized recent oil spill is, f course, the S/T Ocean Eagle. In that incident, the FWPCA was in contact rith the situation within two or so hours of its occurrence. Our field chief flew o Puerto Rico on the same flight with Coast Guard specialists from Washington. PAGENO="0020" 12 Within twelve hours of the accident, we had a functioning team at the seer and were coming to grips with the problem. Our activities included: Assisted in the organization of agencies; Federal, Commonwealth, an otherwise, in developing and coordinating a plan of action. Particularly directed advice to the Puerto Rico Department of Publi Works (assigned as clean-up agency by the Commonwealth) in the mann~ in which clean-up might be accomplished. Endorsed Commonwealth request for release of U. S. Navy equipmei and personnel to attempt removal of bow section to sea. At the outset outlined disadvantages involved in the use of detergents an emulsifiers in the briefings with the other agencies. Assisted in locating difficult-to-obtain equipment needed for treatmer and removal of spilled oil, e.g., diaphragm pumps and adsorbent materia Performed tests relative to the feasibility of using sorbent materials fc oil removal. Initiated and cooperated in the evaluation of actual and potential damag to aquatic life from both the oil alone and from the various schemes cm sidered for oil pollution abatement. Assisted In dissemination of the information to the news media relativ to status of oil removal. One area of particular note was our advise relative to the massive use detergents. We recommended against such massive use because of damage aquatic life, the cost, and damage to beaches. The cost of detergents to dispers 1,000,000 gallons of crude oil would approach $1 million plus the cost of applier tion; deterged oil would cause the beaches to become "quick" and more subje to rapid erosion; and massive dousing of San Juan Harbor with oil and detei gent would have killed virtually all aquatic life including an estimated 2,000,00 lbs. of fish. Our recommendations were reflected in the actions of the Commor wealth government which evolved a policy of "no soap" on the shore and harbo areas. Another spill of serious note was the railroad accident at Dunreith, Indianr January 1, 1908, which spilled a cyanide compound into a tributary of the Bi Blue River. Engineers, chemists, and laboratory and field equipment were rushe to Indiana from our Ohio Basin installations to provide technical assistance i neutralizing the poison to safeguard downstream water supplies. Prompt a tion by the State of Indiana assisted by our Ohio Basin Regional averted major disaster. No persons died or became ill from this pollutional spill; the oni major casualties being some livestock. Recently, our contingency plans and technical expertise have played a rol in other spill incidents, including: Pipeline break in James River, Virginia. Pipeline break in Bayou Boeuf, Louisiana. Sunken barge in Columbia River, Washintgon. Sunken tanker, ft. U. Stoner, Wake Island. Disabled tanker, Pegasus, off East Coast. On scene pollution control expert during removal of grounded tanker~ Wappelo and Verena, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Permanent assignment of aquatic biologist to Anchorage, Alaska to moni tor oil pollution from off-shore drilling, oil loading, and transportation. Further, within the Department of the Interior, the Federal Water Pollutlo: Control Administration has called on and received expert assistance from sue] agencies as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Corn mercial Fisheries in several of these spill situations. Technical expertise am competence with coverage throughout the Nation's watersheds give the Depart ment of the Interior the necessary tools to make the judgments necessary t protect our water resources and to complement the excellent air and sea capabili ties of the Coast Guard for surveillance arid marine reaction. Secretary UDALL. I know the committee members will have ques tions, and we have all the experts at the table here. I hope we can responsive to most of your questions. Mr. BLATNIK. You may read part of it or you can summarize a will, Mr. Secretary. PAGENO="0021" 13 Secretary TJDALL. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend ie decision of this committee to have one hearing and consider all of ie pending water pollution bills. Without doubt, in my judgment the legislation you are considering ~re today is as vital as any conservation legislation pending before ~is Congress. And I am very hopeful that we can get legislation be- re the Congress adjourns in the very vital areas of full funding for aiter pollution grants to meet the requirements of the 1966 act as ~ell as action to give us the remedies and the tools we need to combat ii pollution. You have before you this morning clean water legislation proposed y the administration-namely the Water Quality Improvement Act f 1968-the Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of ~68, and legislation to control pollution from vessels within naviga- le waters. We urge enactment of these bills. Additionally, we urge the enactment of S. 2760, already passed by ie Senate, which deals with important aspects of the oil pollution roblem, as well as with lake eutrophication and acids and other mine ater pollution. THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968 It is the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 that I would like discuss first, Mr. Chairman. I would say that no conservation meas- re is more important. I think this legislation holds the key to shifting ito high gear the water pollution control program-a level that we re now ready to achieve after 2 years of very hard work to establish ar water quality standards. We are at the point now where if we can et the right action tempo at the local level by the cities, with the tates and the Federal Government doing their part, then I think we in see the fur really fly in terms of water pollution action. The Water Quality Act of 1965, of course, calls for the establish- ient of enforceable State water standards on all interstate and coastal aters. We have approved, I think, 29 or 30 of the State standards. he rest will be approved soon. I would say we are making very good ~adway with regard to the water quality standards. In these standards are included implementation plans which call for ie construction of needed waste treatment works on a timely basis. Indeed, water quality standards submitted by a State is a schedule, a action timetable to get the cleanup program down. But of course [1 of these municipal treatment works cost money, large sums of Loney. Our Interior Department report, which we call "The Cost of Clean Tater" submitted to Congress in January, states that the "cost of con- meting municipal waste treatment plants and interceptor sewers is timated at $8 billion, exclusive of land and associated costs" over the ~xt 5 years. We have some indications that these initial estimates may ~ conservative. Whatever these costs finally turn out to be, the fact ~mains that these facilities will be needed or communities will not Leet the schedules of the water quality standards and will face State ad Federal enforcement actions. PAGENO="0022" 14 One can readily see that to implement the water quality standar program on the basis of the schedules contained in the State standar( which have been approved, there is an urgent need to provide ad quate funds to finance the municipal construction phase of the stam ards program. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 is ti cornerstone of this program. In enacting the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, Congre unanimously authorized $3.4 billion for grants for municipal was treatment plants for fiscal years 1968-71. The sum of $203 million w~ appropriated for this fiscal year, the fiscal year we are in right no~ compared with an authorization of $450 million. In other words, we fell substantially short. The President's budget for the next fiscal year contams $225 n'n lion, compared to $700 million which this committee authorized in ti 1966 legislation. We were confronted, Mr. Chairman, with this as a major proble last year. Many of the Governors, many of the mayors are sayin and quite frankly I cannot blame them, that, Well, we are working we on water quality standards,-we are getting ready to go, but the Feder Government isn't getting its money on the line. And this loomed t as a major roadblock to action. I will give you an example. We had, I think, one of our most high successful enforcement conferences 2 months ago on Lake Michiga The four States that share Lake Michigan as a resource all came i They were all cooperative. Most of the Governors spoke up, and the only main complaint at us was that, Where is the Federal Goveri ment's money to meet the schedules that were set out in the 1966 ad Now, we attacked this as our main problem in this area. Last ye~ we studied this problem all fall with the Bureau of the Budget peopi with the Department of the Treasury, and the legislation that y have pending before you today is the result of our effort to devise budget with all the severe budgetary stringencies that we have, get the action level moved up to that contemplated by the Congre in the 1966 act. Of course we were confronted with the fact that because of budge ary stringencies we could not get the additional funds that would I required for cash grants, and this program, the Federal water polii tion control program, has always been a program where the Feder~ Government put cash on the line for its share of a municipal wast treatment plant. Of course the one obvious method that we could use is the san method that some of the States are using-in fact the localities and tI States have both gone to the bonding approach in terms of buildir this kind of public works. So we naturally looked at several altern~ tives with regard to having the Federal Government put its full fai~ and credit back of the municipal bonds for us to sign up firm ar binding contracts that will enable them to get a lower interest ra on bonds, and for us then to pay the interest and principal as it corn due each year, whether this is 20 years, 25 years, or 30 years. We woul sign up firm contracts. And this is the way we could get the Feder Government's commitment on the line and get these projects movin So let me discuss specifically the provisions of this bill, having on lined the background. PAGENO="0023" 15 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr Secretary, I am sorry. This is important. This is iow specifically outlining and stating the points~of this new financing, )ondmg? Secretary TJDALL. That is right. It is what we have called the full- inancing approach to enable us to meet the full commitments en- visioned by this committee in the 1966 act. The first thing the bill would do is authorize long-term contracts- ip to 30 years-with States and local public bodies. These contracts ~ould be pledged by the States or local public bodies as security for )onds issued by them to cover the cost of the treatment plants, includ- rig the Federal share. Under the contracts the Federal Government would pay the prin- ~ipal and interest on that portion of the bonds that represents the iormal Federal grant share under the present act. As you will recall under the 1966 act, this can be 30 percent, 40 per- ~ent, 50 percent, or in some instances 55 percent. Whatever that Fed- ~ral percentage is, it is determined we would pay our share of these )onds and retire them as they came due. The contracts would also provide a Federal guarantee of the non- ~ederal share and the payment of an interest subsidy to reduce the iet effective interest rate to States and localities to a rate reasonably ~omparab1e to rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds. 4. The bill provides that the interest on bonds issued to construct hese plants shall not be exempt from Federal income taxation. Let me emphasize this nonexempt tax feature is a major element )f this very important legislation. I think you will see why. It is, ~owever, not `intended as an opening wedge precedent `to eiiminiatin~ the ;ax exemption for municipal bonds-this does not represent a decision y the administration that we are going to change the law with regard 0 tax-exempt bonds-but we have a very special situation here. And he provision that we have in this legislation is important for three Seasons: First, the bill provides for a Federal guarantee of the entire bond, ~ven the local share, and for an annual Federal payment of principal Lnd interest on part of them. It would not be good policy to apply this ~uarantee to tax-exempt bonds. We believe that the Federal guarantee would have the effect of low- ring the risk, equivalent to a triple-A bond rating for the communities oncerned. Second, without this provision, we are convinced that the proposal ould add substantially to the volume of new issues of tax-exempt )Onds by State and local public bodies. This would be particularly un- lesirable in view of the already large volume of municipal bond issues ~nd the current high interest rates which States and localities are re- ~uired to pay. Making the proposed new bonds taxable rather than tax- xernpt would avoid adding to pressures on the municipal bond market nd would thus result in significant savings in interest costs to States nd localities on their borrowings for other urgent needs such as chools. roads, and other public facilities. Third, the use of taxaible rather than tax-exempt bonds would also a significantly cheaper for the Federal Government, even with the nterest subsidy. The reason is that, as public and private studies have Lemonstrated, tax-exemption costs more to the Federal Government in PAGENO="0024" 16 lost revenues than communities gain in lower interest costs. There- fore it is possible for the Federal Government to give communities an equivalent interest subsidy and still save money. 5. The contracts would be available where the waste treatment sys- tem, not the particular projects, serves 125,000 people or more or serves all or part of a standard metropolitan statistical area. In our cost study, we indicated that there is a pressing need to upgrade waste treatment facilities in our major metropolitan areas. These are the areas that have been largely left out of the earlier grant programs because of the limitations written into those laws. The program, which is designed primarily to meet urban require- ments, also would cover smaller communities ~h~ch would form a part of, or are contiguous to, larger metropolitan areas. It is our hope that this legislation will encourage metropolitan or regional waste collec- tion and treatment. The bill would also require the establishment of a system of user charges which would be sufficient to amortize the local share, pay oper- ation and maintenance costs, and establish a reasonable reserve to meet planned expansion needs. 7. The bill provides that not more than 10 percent of the funds available for contracts in any year could be obligated to any one State Contract funds not obligated in 1 year carryover to the succeeding year and are added to the total contractual authority for that year. We recognize that this is a departure from the allocation formula approach now in the act. But we believe that this change is important if the Federal Government really means to meet its commitment tc the highly urbanized areas of the country with the greatest water pol- lution control needs. We fully expect that the smaller communities oi the Nation, which are not eligible under the contract approach, wil] use the direct grant method to finance construction. 8. In 1966, Congress added to the act a provision which was intended to encourage communities to proceed with the construction of treat- ment works without a Federal grant or only a partial one. We would approve the project and the community would, usually with StatE help, finance it. They could then seek reimbursement for the Federal share from allocations available for grants prior to July 1, 1971. The State of New York, with their bond program, made a special case on this. And I think the committee wisely enacted that speCial provision into law. The 1966 amendment made it very clear, however, that approval oi the project could not be construed, at any time, as an obligation 01 commitment of the Federal Government to provide funds for th project. As of April 1, 1968, 379 funded or partially funded project~ have been approved. These could receive a total Federal payment oi about $215 million when, and if, the money is available for suci payment. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 is designed to replaCE the 1966 amendment after July 1, 1968, without affecting eligibl( projects already approved. We recognize that some States, like Ne~ York, have initiated a program with some reliance on this reimburse ment provision. We believe, however, that these States will realize thai the contract approach is a vast improvement because it gives the com PAGENO="0025" 17 rriunity more than a fond hope of payment. It gives them a commit- rnent or obligation of the Federal Government, a flat contractual ~greement. In our view this should be far more acceptable than the reimbursement feature now in the act. ~ONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION FROM VESSELS AND SHORE INSTALLATIONS In many respects the problems of vessel pollution, oil pollution, and spills of other hazardous substances are closely related. All may come from the same sources, may be intermittent in nature, may occur at almost any point in or near navigable waters, and may result in dam- ages ranging from the almost invisible to the deadly or catastrophic. The To~rey Canyon disaster and the recent breakup of the Ocean Eagle in San Juan Harbor have increased public awareness of the problem. Indeed I think I should report to the committee that it seems like almost a weekly event that I get a report from water pollution control people on some kind of oil spill or another. Some of them get in the press. There was one in the press, as the chairman noted, in Hawaii this morning. We had a bad one on the Columbia Biver 2 weeks ago. There are large and small spills. And of course the dramatic ones like the Torrey Canyon and the Ocean Eagle do show the tremendous dam- age and the tremendous problems that can be caused by these large major spills. After the Torrey Canyon report, Mr. Chairman, the President di- rected that the Department of Interior and the Department of Trans- portation make a study of this whole problem. The report of that study suggested a number of legislative needs to strengthen Federal authority to prevent and control spills. One, amendments to the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, to extend coverage to all spills whether or not they are grossly negligent or willful, to spills from all sources, and to spills within the contiguous zone, as well as within the territorial sea and navigable waters of the United States. Two, legislation to require an oil discharger to pay all of the costs of removing the oil, incurred by the Secretary of the Interior. Three, legislation to make the person who discharges or deposits hazardous substances other than oil into navigable waters or the con- tiguous zone responsible for removing the substance, and to empower the Secr~tary of the Interior to act if such person faHs to act, and to recover the costs. These were recommendations that we devised, the two departments working together, to provide the kind of quick remedies that we feel are going to be absolutely essential, if we are to be able to reduce the damage and produce countermeasures as needed. OIL POLLUTION PROVISIONS OF S. 2760 S. 2760, passed by the Senate ~nd now before this committee, would fulfill the report's recommendations relating to the control of oil pollution in the navigable waters of the United States. It would repeal the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, and incorporate its provisions, with PAGENO="0026" 18 strengthening changes, into the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We think this is a very wise step to get all of our legislation together under one act. Most of these changes were recommended by the admin- istration last June. The Senate bill would: 1. Delete the requirement that a "discharge" be "grossly negligent or willful" before liability attaches. 2. Limit criminal penalties to cases in which the discharge was due to a willful act. 3. Apply civil penalties to all discharges except emergencies im- periling life or property, unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding the last two to apply only to vessels. 4. Expand the act's coverage to shore installations. 5. Specifically include in its coverage Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is- lands, Guam, and American Samoa. 6. Require the owners of vessels and shore installations to remove discharged oil from navigable waters and adjoining shorelines or tc pay the cleanup costs. Thus, the discharger has the responsibility tc `clean up oil under our direction. We only act where he fails to meet hh responsibility. The Government can then recover its costs and, in the case of a vessel, the owner cannot limit his liability. We realize that this cleanup provision is quite severe, but we be- lieve there is a clear and present need for this authority as recently demonstrated in Puerto Rico. We hope that `it will make those in charge of tankers and shore installations more conscious of their responsibility `to the Nation to prevent damage to its natural resources. Those whc control the oil should be responsible for bearing this cost, rather than the public in our judgment. 7. Authorize appropriations to a revolving fund to enable the Secre- `tary to finance such cleanup measures. We are working now so that in all of these different areas-and the Coast Guard has important responsibilities, the Corps of Engineers has important responsibilities, along with FWPCA-we have a con- tingency action plan, so that we can anticipate any kind of disaster and know where supplies of the chemicals or emulsifiers, or whatever we are going to use are located, and have an action plan ready to go in the event that a large or small disaster occurs. In my letter of March 8, 1968, to this committee, I recommended certain amendments to this portion of 5. 2760 in order to facilitate ad- ministration of these provisions. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify certain provisions of the bill and to delineate more precisely the respective roles of the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies. We believe quite strongly that the `Coast Guard and other agencies must be given a big role in making the legis- lation work. And we are going to have to have some team work, and we would like legislation to spell that out. THE OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1068 The oil pollution control portion of S. 2760 is a major step toward closing yet another chink in our pollution control armor. However, the bill does not reach certain aspects of the recommendations in the oil pollution report. The Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Con- PAGENO="0027" 19 ~o1 Act of 1968, before you as H.R. 15906 and identical bills, ad- resses itself to additional key areas not covered in S. 2760. S. 2760 and LB. 15906 are complementary. They do not overlap, but, taken to- ether, they extend our ability to control oil pollution to the contiguous Due, the 9-mile strip of ocean beyond our territorial waters, which was stablished by an international convention on September 10, 1964. The bill would further provide for the cleanup of large or un- sually hazardous discharges of pollutants other than oil. The Water ~uaiity Act of 1965 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to request ie Attorney General to bring suit to secure abatement of pollution rhich reduces the quality of interstate waters below established water uality standards. However, the legal procedure necessarily delays batement action -for at least 6 months. Thus, the Federal Govern- ment now lacks authority to cope with large and unusually hazardous iseharges of material, such as those which occurred recently on the iihch River in Virginia and at Dunreith, md., as they occur and efore they do great damage. Immediate action is important for con- iinment, and for the control of spills of hazardous substances. The cleanup authority is similar to that applicable to oil. It is not, owever, applicable to all discharge of matter, but only to those of afficient quantity to warrant a finding by the Secretary of the Interior ~at the discharge or threatened discharge presents an imminent and Lmbsta.ntial hazard to the public health or welfare. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM VESSELS I then move on to legislation proposed for the control of pollution ~om vessels. Vessels-watercraft of widely varying types-are included in the ategory of the migratory polluter. Sanitary wastes, litter, bilge umpage, and polluted ballast discharges are among the kinds of ollutants emanating from these sources. Watercraft wastes are highly isible, offensive to the senses, and often have a pollution effect dis- roportionate to their quantity. H.R. 13923 and H.R. 16207 embody he legislative action which we believe is required to mount a compre- ensive attack on vessel pollution. I am going to skip over to the top of page 16, Mr. Chairman, to ilk about the details of this legislation. This bill would apply to foreign and domestic vessels, and to the avigable waters and the contiguous zone. The bill would direct the ecretary of the Interior to establish by regulation, standards for the ontrol of sewage emitting from vessels. The standards will be developed after an extensive investigation nd research effort is carried out to examine the efficiency and effec- veness of various systems for the treatment of sewage from vessels, icluding a careful study of the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining such systems on various classes of vessels. The standards will be as uniform as possible for various classes of essels with in similar circumstances. The regulations will set reasonable compliance schedules. The bill would direct the Secretary to prescribe regulations govern- ig the discharge of ballast and bilge water into such waters from essels engaged in commerce. PAGENO="0028" 20 The bill directs the Secretary to issue regulations governing th discharge of litter, garbage, sludge, and other substances, other thai oil and dredge spoil, from vessels whether such substance originate on the vessel or is transported by the vessel. Before the Secretary issues any regulations he must consult witl Defense and other interested Federal and State agencies and represen tatives of various interested industries. The bill would authorize the Secretary to exempt certain classe of vessels. Once the standards are issued, a program for certifying the ade quancy of various devices will be initiated. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation, operating througi the U.S. Coast Guard, must also certify the device from a safet~ standpoint. After the effective date of the regulations it will be unlawful t pollute the navigable waters of the United ~tates from vessels am to make any discharges from vessels into such waters, except in ac cordance with the regulations. The bill establishes penalties for violations. Detailed information about the problem to which H.R 13923 am }LR. 16207 are directed is contained in the report, "Wastes fron Watercraft," submitted to Congress in compliance with section 1' of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Cleai Water Restoration Act of 1966. OTHER PROVISIONS OF S. 27 GO LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL AND CONTROl OF POLLUTION FROM ACID AND OTHER MINE DRAINAGE Moving to the bottom of page 18 to the other provisions, I an not going to read that, Mr. Chairman, but this does describe in de tail the provisions of S. 2760 with regard to lake pollution contro and control of pollution from acid and other mine drainage. These are vital provisions. I would simply like to say in conclusion that I know this is a largi order facing this committee to tackle these major bills. Yet, I think this Congress has a wonderful opportunity to finisi the work that was done in 1965 and 1966 with the Water Quality Ac and with the Clean Waters Restoration Act. And I think if you wil give us these tools to work with, that we can say with some confidenc~ that we can move forward aggressively, working with the local com munities, working with the States, in a unique partnership to cleai up the lakes and the rivers and to protect the water resources of thi Nation. I believe I have the people here, Mr. Chairman, who can answer o: try to answer any questions that you have, and we are delighted to b here this morning. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is certaini: a wide-ranging statement and certainly a statement that comes to grip with several important aspects of pollution, including financing whici is a very troublesome problem. Mr. Secretary, obviously, we will be able to ask some questions thi morning, but obviously these different areas to which you have out PAGENO="0029" 21 med will require a great deal of study on our part, discussion, and [want the committee members to know that we will have more dis- ~ussions within our own committee, perhaps in executive session and ;tudy groups, and have members of your staff available and members )f the Bureau of the Budget. It is sort of a large meal to digest in one itting. But I think the presentation in broad strokes and delineating the treas for legislative action was necessary to open these hearings. I will not go too much in the financing. I think that would be a ~ontroversial matter. Yet it does appeal to a lot of us and must have lot of merit. Certainly I think we would all agree that there is a need ;o assist the municipalities with the financing. Some alterations have to be made in your proposal to make it more icceptable as well as workable to the municipalities, and I am sure here will be no objection to that. Many members of this committee on both sides are not distressed, )ut certainly disappointed that after we got the national attitude and ;upport for water pollution abatement facilities really cranked up, following the water quality legislation of 1965 and 1966, we had sort a slump and letdown. We feel that we sort of pulled a run-not in- entionally-through circumstances beyond the control of those in the )ongress and those in the executive. The effect pulled the rug out of those States that we were trying to notivate and stimulate and activate to get them going. Just a few questions, Mr. Secretary, for the time being. WATER QUALITY STANDARBS On your water quality standards, page 2, you say about 25 to 30 states have already been approved. Could you give us some idea about iow long it will take for the rest of them to be approved? Secretary TJDALL. Well, we actually have approved 31. The others ire in the process of negotiation. I think we anticipate at this point- here are perhaps two or three of the States where we are having some `ather violent disagreements-but I think we can get agreements on nost of them within the next several weeks, Mr. Chairman. Some of these negotiations tend to string out, and I would rather iot tie myself too tightly to a time schedule, because I think it is more mportant to get the right result than to simply decide that we are ~oing to conclude it in a particular period of time. Much of this is echnical. But I would say that I think we are laying down a very ound set of standards. We are receiving fine cooperation from the States. And I think that ertainly within the next few weeks that you will see most of the State's tandards approved. Mr. BLATNIK. The standards will have to be established then in ifect before municipalities and the industries involved know pre- isely what is expected of them to proceed then to undertake what- ver is necessary and required to maintain the standards that are greed upon; is that not right? Secretary TIDALL. The standards, as the Congress contemplated in he 1965 act, lay the framework for the whole cleanup program. They re the absolute vital elements. We have not had to set a single set of PAGENO="0030" 22 Federal standards; we do not want to unless we are pushed in a pos: tion where we absolutely have to. Once we get agreement on tli standards they will be administered in the first instance by the State: They will be regarded as their own standards, and I think this going to give us the right kind of action focus, because they will 1 pushing for the standards enforcement and for the action agreed upo just as much as we are. NEW FINANCING METI-IOD-WASTE TREATMENT WORKS Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Hughes, on the Secretary's statement on page under paragraph 1, last sentence, and this deals with the long-ten contract up to 30 years with States and local public bodies: These contracts could be initiated once a level of contractural authority established in an Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1969. These contracts woul be binding obligations of the United States. Now the last sentence: Once executed, appropriations to liquidate them would be automatic. Could you make any comments on it? Does the Bureau of the Budg concur with it? I am not familiar with the financing aspect. Do yo see any impossible complications or conflict of jurisdiction wth th approprations of the other House? Mr. HUGHES. I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman. As the Secretar indicated, we have shared this committee's concern over our inabilit to finance as fully as we wish the authorizations which the Congre~ has provided for the control of water poflution. And we believe thi contract technique is a means through which we can do a much mor adequate job then we have done. Briefly, the legislation provides for Appropriations Committe approval of the contracting process. In other words, it would approv the entering into of contracts in a specified amount, and once tha approval had been e~tended under the terms of the bill, then the sul sequent contracts would be binding and the 30-year payments that tb legislation would authorize would be automatic. Mr. BLATNIK. Has this fiscal arrangement or mechanism been use in any other Federal grant programs, such as hospitals, schools, au ports? Mr. HUGHES. Not in precisely this form, Mr. Chairman. It is a ne~ approach basically. The contract authority has been used in other pr gran'i areas, but in somewhat different context than this. Mr. BLATNIK. Who authorizes the contract authority in those in stances? Would it be the operating agency, like HEW for the case c education? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. Department of Transportation would be for airport~s Mr. HUGHES. Once the contract authority had been extended by tli Congress, the agency in charge would then utilize it to carry out tli purposes of the authorizing act. The procedure would be the san here. This bill, which obviously is under the ]unlSdictiOn of this commil tee, would provide the basic authorization, and then the individm yearly contract payments would be provided by appropriation actior PAGENO="0031" 23 The appropriation action would commit the Government to an cx- ended period of contract payments in accordance with the provisions )f the statute. Mr. BLATNIK. On the same page 4, under paragraph 3: Under the contracts the Federal Government would pay the principal and nterest on that portion of the bonds that represents the normal Federal grant hare under the present act. That is understandable, and I think reasonable. Later on, if I could have an explanation of this proposal: Contracts would also provide a Federal guarantee of the non-Federal share nd the payment of an interest subsidy to reduce the net effective interest rate o States and localities to a rate reasonably comparable to rates on tax-exempt riunicipal bonds. Contracts would also provide the Federal guarantee of the non- federal share. The question would be: Is that unusual or what is the justification !or that guarantee? Mr. HUGHES. This is a new sort of approach, Mr. Chairman. rfhe oncept basically is that the Federal Government in extending the federal guarantee to the Federal share of the obligation extends a ubstantial benefit to the community and in effect supports the whole )bligation. I think the committee is aware of our concern that the Sec- etary expressed over tax exemptions as a means of supporting-as a ubsidy means, in effect, of supporting local obligations. We recognize, however, that the withdrawal of tax exemption in his particular situation would cause the community to pay a some- chat higher rate than would be charged for the tax-exempt obliga- ion. And the interest subsidy which is referred to in the last sentence could be in recognition of that somewhat higher rate and would be Federal subsidy to lead the community into essentially the same osition as it would have been had it borrowed on a tax-exempt basis. I think it might ~e well, if you wish at this point, to talk a little bout the tax-exempt problem; and briefly the situation is this: Ve feel that a number of factors make it wise in a program of as direct ~ederal concern that this one is to provide an alternative to normal Deal tax-exempt financing. There is a great deal of evidence of pres- ure on the tax-exempt bond market, pressure which has resulted in acreased interest rates and the prospect of even further increases. The taxable market is a much broader market. And it would take orrespondingly heavier pressure. So that concern `has caused us to uggest this guaranteed, Federal guaranteed approach rather than a ax-exempt approach. Also, and of more direct concern to us and I believe to the committee, is quite clear that tax exemption per se is a relatively inefficient tibsidy means to carry out Federal objectives. The tax exemption has two effects really. It provides somewhat lower Titerest rates to the community, but it also provides higher income ~ian would be provided by a taxable security to the investor. The wer interest rates to the community are not--they are not pro- ortionately lower in consideration of the cost in lost taxes to the ~ederal Government. As a consequence, this approach which we have utlined in this legislation, would achieve the same result with the PAGENO="0032" 24 same borrowing cost to the local community at a4bout 30 percent oi an average less cost to the Federal Government. Mr. BLATNIK. You have answered my question that I had on pag 5 where the Secretary states: It would not be good policy to apply this guarantee to tax-exempt bon& And at the bottom of page 5, the statement: The use of taxable rather than tax-exempt bonds would also be significanti; cheaper for the Federal Government, even with the interest subsidy. We will need obviously much more briefing and discussion an explanation on the financing aspects. With the number of witnesses, I would like to sort of move along Mr. Jones. SOLID WASTE: RELATED TO WATER POLLUTION Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, just a brief question. Mr. Secretary, during the development of our water resource pro gram we have moved to satisfy the public requirements. We starte~ off with flood control and navigation. A:ad we added hyciroelectri power. Then we proceeded to recognize the competitive need of bet ter quality of water. We have recognized the importance of recreatior All of those factors went into the great and enormous problem o dealing with our water resources in a prudent and wise manner. However, we have done it to satisfy the immediate needs and hay not in all instances made long-range plans. Now we are considerin~ an acceleration of water quality protection for municipalities, politi cal subdivisions. But it seems to me that there has been great neglec of dealing with solid waste disposal, which is an integral part of th municipal function, in dealing with the problem of waste dispose along with water pollution. Do you not think it is time for the Federal Government and th Congress to consider this enormous problem in relationship to wate pollution abatement ~ Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I certainly say without questio: that is one of the major conservation problems that we are not al tacking head on at the present time. And I would certainly agre with you that we need to give it the attention that it deserves. We as a rich society have enormous productivity. We produce a enormous amount of waste. Mr. JONES. We have had numerous instances in the Great LakE area, particularly of disposal problems, that the larger mumcipahtic are faced with in the Great Lakes area. We also recognize the part the solid waste disposal has played in the eutrophication in the lakes are~ It seems to me that it would be necessary for us to give thought i this connection; because if we are going out and say we are ]ust goin to deal with water abatement programs, then 5 years we are comm back and we are going to deal with solid waste disposal, and then `cs are going to have to have new moneys for that, then the price tag. certainly going up. I think that we could at this time give attention to that questio Secretary UDALL. I certainly agree with you. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Wright. PAGENO="0033" 25 INADEQUATE FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR WASTE TREATMENT WORKS Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Secretary, you speak in your statement of an all- )ut assault on pollution and the need for further legislation. I would like to say that I believe you as Secretary of the Interior iave been more vitally interested and more accurately concerned than my of your predecessors in your office with this problem of pollution. I want to congratulate you on your leadership and your great in- erest in this field. However, I am not certain that the amounts of appropriations rec- )mrnended by the administration for this year and for next year are ising the tools that Congress already has given them in our Water ~uality Act of 1966. I do not believe they amount to what can be ~alled an all-out assault. You mentioned on page 3 of your statement that the present fiscal year $203 million is appropriated. I gather that that is about the imount that the administration requested, is it not? Secretary UDALL. I think very close to it. Mr. WRIGHT. And our act that we passed in 1966, we authorized ~45O million for the present fiscal year, so that you asked for about ~alf of what we authorized to be expended in this all-out assault? Secretary TJDALL. That is correct. This is the shortfall that caused ~s to conclude that we had to come up with a new method of getting the Federal commitment on the line in order to get into full gear. And I quite agree with you that we have not this fiscal year met the Larget. We have fallen short. That is the reason we have come in with the legislation. BOND APPROACH Mr. WRIGHT. For the coming fiscal year our act that we passed in 1966 authorized $700 million, and this gradually-not so gradually- rather sharply escalated program that we set forth, we authorized $700 million and the President's budget is asking for $225 million, less than i third of the amount that we authorized. You are suggesting a long-term bonding proposal. Incidentally, do you know the first person to recommend that approach to this com- mittee, the financing of water pollution abatement? Secretary UDALL. I do not recall. Mr. WRIGHT. Nelson Rockefeller recommended it to us in 1965 and again in 1966. That essentially as I understand it is what they have done in New York on the State pollution programs. Secretary UDALL. Well, most States, Congressman, have used those- 10 or 12 or is it now 14 States that make State grants-most of them have used the bond approach. And of course the local governments use Lhe bond approach as well. The Federal Government is keying itself into the bond approach by this payment device, rather than our being the one level of government to put up cash-everybody else is using the bond approach in terms of financing this kind of public works pro] ect. Mr. WRIGHT. That sounds fairly plausible, and I do not want to prejudice myself against it. I do have some reservations about the amount you propose. 94-376---GS-------3 PAGENO="0034" 26 In 1955 the President's Clay Commission under President Eisen- hower recommended a long-term bonding approach essentially similar to this that you recommend today for financing of the Interstate highway program. This was rejected by Congress. We adopted instead a pay-as-we-go approach to build out of current revenues each year the amount of highway that could be built out of those revenues. We created a special trust fund, as you are quite aware, and have followed the pay-as-we-go approach on the interstate highway program. I think it has been a significant success. One of the reasons that we rejected the long-term bonding approach at this time was that our analysis indicated to us that for every dollar's worth of highway built, it ultimately would cost us $1.55 when we paid the interest over the period of amortization. Now, that was calculated on interest rates prevalent in 1955. I daresay it would be still higher today. I wonder how this comports with our efforts to put the Government in a fiscally responsible position so as to improve our international dollar balance and respect for the dollar throu;ghout the world? The President's insistence-I think quite properly-that we do one of two things, or a combination of two things, either reduce appropriations or raise taxes to bring it into a current balance on a pay-as-we-go basis-I wonder how this long-term bonding proposal that you have offered today comports with that? Secretary UDALL. Congressman, let me discuss this and then Director Hughes would like to comment on it. You have put your finger on a basic l)Olicy question. And I say quite frankly, I think in terms of the situation we find ourselves in that going to the approach of the Federal Government paying its part of the bonds as they become due is under these circumstances very sound. And I recall, because I came to Congress when you did, and this was one of the major pieces of legislation in 1955 and 1956, when we wrote the highway legislation. And there was a feeling in the Congress at that time that we could set up a special fund, and that we could pay for the highway program as we went along through that fund. WTe have basically adopted over the years the same approach to water pollution. What happened in my view, however, is that in 1966 the Congress saw that its level of appropriations, which then was under $200 million, was too small.. We were only helping the small communities. Congress decided to make a commitment to put up at least 30 percent of the money for all communities in the country, to move to a very high level of activity. In fiscal year 1970, the authorization will go to a~ billion dollars of Federal grants, then to $1.25 billion under the act. Quite frankly under the current budgetary stringencies we do not have the cash. Now, we have a provision in this legislation so that if there is an alteration in the budgetary picture, we could increase the cash amount. We can come in and pay off our portion of bonds if we want to, so we do have that provision in it. But from the standpoint of social or political philosophy, I think I can justify the bond approach; because after all, that is what the States and cities are doing in this field. PAGENO="0035" 27 There is one thing about the water pollution control program. If Te clean up our rivers and our lakes, everyone will benefit. And our hildren and theirs will benefit and maybe they should pay a little it on this. Maybe they should share in the cost. Under your highway program, you finish the Interstate Highway etwork, it is paid for, and the people that use it the next 20 years coin now, they use it free. They do not have to pay anything. `We aid for it. I think you can argue this thing both ways. So that I would say we would rathe.r have the cash grant approach. ~Te would rather pay as we go. However, since we do not have that md of money available now, I think this is a good substitute. I would ather see the other, if I had my preference, but I think that' you can istify it as a sound approach, because this is precisely the way ~lic. fties and the States are financing this type of public works projec. Mr. WRIGhT. In that connection, I wonder if you have explored ~ith the Appropriations Committee or any of its members their atti- ide toward this kind of arrangement, as Mr. Hughes described it- Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I explained this to both of my ~ppropriations Committees, the Public Works Appropriations Corn- iittees, earlier this year. And I went into great detail on it. I thought made a very good record on it. I will be candid with the committee. I know Congressman Davis f `Wisconsin was one, and others, said they did not indicate neces- irily that they were against it, but they said that they did not like ie aspect that you were getting what they called an automatic corn- iitment by the Federal Government which becomes one of those ncontrollable items with regard to budgets. And it does have that egative aspect to it. `We might as well be honest about it. Mr. `WRIGHT. I suppose some of these fellows are `inclmed to call nythingof this type that obligates us.in the future without giving the ppropriating process annual review, they are inclined to call it back- oor financing. I wonder if they would apply that term to this pproach? Secretary UDALL. This would not be back-door financing. `We have iade it very plain to them. That is the reason that I brought the sub- ~ct up with the committees. I told them `this legislation was pending. ~e `hoped it would be enacted. We thought it would get us on schedule; ut,that we would review the matter with them each year. We would ring our commitments to them. We would lay the whole thing out. ~nd this would enable us to make them a party to the whole program, nd this is what we envision. You see, Congressman, just to give you some idea of the magnitudes ~re, we could move 2 fiscal years from now to $1.25 billion in Fed- ral commitments. And let us assume we still only had $225 million in rants. In other words, this would be over a billion in Federal commit- ients for something in the beginning on the order of $30 to $35 mil- on that we would pay the first year. In fact, next fiscal year there will B no Federal outlay whatsoever because the first payments do not me due for 1 year from the time we sign the first contract~. Mr. WRIGHT. Laying aside any possible legal aspects, I am certain iat if the Congress were going to take this approach, it would have PAGENO="0036" 28 to recognize that such obligations as were incurred would be some what obligatory and mandatory on future Congresses for appropria tions for amounts to pay on national-to tli.e sense that our nationa debts are obligatory-they are beyond our control. There is not an~ way that Congress can exercise 1 year of control over that amount other than by what legislation we might enact to influence interes~ rates. There is to my mind a further question. This country continues t grow and I presume it will continue in the future to grow. I assum~ that our cities will continue to experience the burgeoning growth thai they have had the last few years, perhaps accelerate. I anticipate thai the needs may become even more demanding than they are today What happens now if we obligate all this money that we think w can afford to pay off bonds for facilities that have been built in what ~we might call a crash program, and then we encounter greater de mands in the future than we had anticipated and have not got an~ money left to help finance new construction ? Secretary UDALL. Well, let me discuss that question as candidly a~ I can with you, because the Congress 2 years ago, when ~OU wrote thE 1966 act, set the levels of Federal participation for a 5-year program You were attempting at that time to forecast what the needs would be and we made the first cost study since then. which you have before you Here we are 2 years later, back reviewing the whole matter. WE are in trouble, and we are trying to keep the program on schedule I would anticipate that this is going to be the process that we will have to go through, and that 2 years, 3 years from now we will be bac1~ again trying to look at what the national needs are to see whether w are on schedule and so on. But I think our view at this writing would be that, because of th fact that setting the water-quality standards has taken really a yeai longer than we thought it would, it was a bigger job than I thinb anyone else realized when we began it. Therefore, I think it would be our view that if we can move ahead on this schedule that is laid out, at least for the next 2 or 3 years, and scale up, moving up tc $700 million of Federal assistance, to a billion, to $1.25 billion, that this is going to get a very vigorous program going. It is going to really be moving almost from low gear into higl: gear in terms of community action if we move ahead. Then we can come back and review it at that point to see whethem we are meeting the national needs. I think we can meet them. And I think the program as we have it laid out is a pretty sound one a~ far as we know today. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Secretary, I have some other questions. I do not want to usurp the time. I know some other members of the commit- tee have some questions they want to ask. I assume that you or som of the people from your staff will be available to us throughout thE remainder of our deliberations. Let me just say that while I do have some quite serious reservations about this long-term bonding approach, I certainly do want to con gratul ate you for your continuing interest and imaginative approaci for all the work that has gone into the approach. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. PAGENO="0037" 29 Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman has quite )roperly pointed out that this is something we are going to have. o digest, and certainly we cannot digest it all at once. I want to commend the Secretary because he has answered one )f my first questions, as I listened to his testimony and read his presen- ation, and one of my first questions was to ask him if really what his all amounted to did not boil down to the fact that the Federal ~overniT1ent was going to take the bond route very much as the local ommunity and States were now doing, particularly this is so in New ~Iampshire. And he has been very ca.ndid about that, and I think it s quite clear that although they are calling these things contracts, tnd it is a nice-sounding word, they are really talking about some- king which is, in essence, a bond. ~ELATIONSI-IIP BETWEEN CONTRACT LEVEL AND TOTAL AUTHORIZATION To help orient my thinking on this, Mr. Secretary, I would also like 0 find out how this legislation, if we approve it, meshes into what we iave already done. For example, are the authorizations and appropria- ions that we have already enacted-you refer to them on page 3 of ~our statement-they would of course go along as they are going dong. Is it contemplated that the interest payment or the payments mcler these contracts will come out of that authorization and appro- )riation? Secretary IJDALL. No. Let us assume that for the coming fiscal year ye got the $225 million appropriation. Then since the authorization for next fiscal year was $700 million, we are $475 million short. The $475 million, we would take up that slack with this Federal ommitinent. Mr. CLEVELAND. You would have to dip a little bit into the $225 nillion in order to meet the commitments- Secretary TJDALL. Let us assume you pass this law and you make it ~ffective for fiscal 1969, and there would be no payment due the first tear. So we would not~ have to do that. We would anticipate, how- wer, or we would hope at this time, that we could keep the grant noney at roughly the $200-million range. We may not be able to, and ye will have to review that each year with the Bureau of the Budget. ~Vhatever money that we had to put up to pay the interest and princi- )al payineiits would be on top of the grant money. Mr. CLEVELAND. To continue this line of questioning, will this new heory or new approach of the contracts come in under the authoriza- ions from this committee? Secretary UDALL. That is correct. We are trying to make up the gap n your authorization in the 1966 act. Mr. CLEVELAND. So the authorizations that we have passed remain is an umbrella on this situation? Secretary LDALL. They are the ceiling we are trying to reach. Mr. CLEVELAND. However, that is as Mr. Wright has pointed out not ompletely a ceiling or completely an umbrella, because that only rep- esents annual payments of interest and principal, which would in ifect permit you to spend a great deal more-in reality spend a great teal more than the authorization, correct? PAGENO="0038" 30 Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Cleveland, if I could talk to that point. riii statute says that the contracts entered into in value during the yea: that is the total contracts entered into during that year, cannot excee the difference between the cash grant figure and the total authorizt tion. The authorization figure in the legislation is an overall ceilint We could enter into contracts the annual payments for which woul make up that difference. Do I make myself clear? Mr. CLEVELAND. If what you say, if I understand what you sa~ then the authorization that this committee has passed remains in eff eel not only as to interest and principal paynients, but as to total coni tractual- Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. The combination of the cash grant. Mr. CLEVELAND. Would you call my attention to where that is in th bill, please? Secretary UDALL. Page 9. Mr. HUGHES. I refer you, Mr. Cleveland, to page 9, section 3. I thinl perhaps the think to do is read the language from H.R. 15907. For the purpose of making grants under subsection (b) of this section, ther is authorized to be approprated $700 million for the fiscal year ending June 3~ 1969; $1 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970; and $1.25 billion for th fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. For the purpose of liquidating contracts entere into under subsection (f) of this section, there is authorized to be appropriate such sums as may be necessary for those fiscal years and for each fiscal yea thereafter. Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain availr ble until expended. Mr. CLEVELAND. Are you sure that that language puts your tota authorization under that ceiling of $700 million? It does not rea exactly that way. Mr. HUGHES. It does not, Mr. Cleveland. I may be misinformed, bu I thought it did. I am sorry. I misinformed you. I thought the language was in th bill. It is rather in the accompanying documents. It is in the form o an expression of intent. And the intent would be to authorize con tracts equivalent to the difference between the cash and the tota authorization. I am sorry for the misinformation. Mr. CLEVELAND. In other words, as far as you people are concerned this can be amended in that respect, because that is your intention Mr. HUGHES. Our intention was to provide a total program lev equivalent to the authorization each year. Mr. CLEVELAND. The language that has been supplied to me is tha the authorization will serve only as a guide to determine the principa sums available for determining the limitations in the appropriatio: act. This is going to be one of the questions I am sure the committee wi] want to know. Mr. HUGHES. That is quite right. Mr. CLEVELAND. You must admit that if we were to enact this legh lation, that under this legislation you could go into these contract up to an amount of the annual payments to meet the authorization That is a different kettle of fish than if you treat the whole amour of the contract over the 30-year period as part of the authorization. PAGENO="0039" 31 Secretary TJDALL. That would be a much different magnitude. Mr. HUGHES. It would be a vastly expanded program. Mr. CLEVELAND. In other words, that would be a real bond? Secretary UDALL. That is right. NOT BACKDOOR FINANCING Mr. HUGHES. I think part of the point here gets back to Mr. Wright's point concerning the appropriation review and the effect of that on the legislation. He had raised the question as to whether this constituted backdoor financing in the sense that it is of concern to us as it is to the Appropriations Committee, and I think the answer is unqualifiedly it is not backdoor financing as would for instance a straight public debt authorization be. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Wright, I have othe.r ques- tions, but I recognize that there are other members of the committee with questions, and in conclusion I would like to say that, Mr. Secre- tary, as always when you appear before Congress, you give us some- thing to think about. You have certainly given us something to think about today. And I am sure that many other committees, legislative committees in Congress, will be following our deliberations on this mat- ter with interest; because although you were addressing yourself to the problem of clean water, which is a national problem, if I read tile papers correctly, there are many other national problems of concern. The precedent we are setting here will be watched with more than ordinary interest. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. First I would like to join my colleagues in con- gratulating the Secretary as another example of what I have heard re- ferred to as "imagineering." And I think the gentleman who occupies the chair of Secretary of Interior right now is one of the ablest "imag- ineers" that we have in Government. This is a very serious problem, regardless of what criticism may be directed against it, and I think it is a recognition that we are lagging in an area of vital importance to the country. We must find financing methods of some kind to close this gap to keep up the demands of this expanding economy of society. CONTRACT PROPOSAL GEARED TO POPULOUS AREAS Now, I profess to you quite frankly that I am a little bit disturbed about the fact that the new devices that are proposed would appear to be restricted pretty largely in their operation to the metropolitan or urban areas of the country. And I would like to ask either the Secretary or somebody else who is knowledgeable on the subject to tell us just how many areas in the country would be covered by the language in your contract-the description is under paragraph 5: The contracts would be available where the waste treatment system, not the particular project, serves 125,000 people or more or serves all or part of a standard metropolitan statistical area- As defined by the Bureau of the Budget. PAGENO="0040" 32 I would like to know just how many areas there are in the countr) that fit that description and what percentage of the people in th United States are included in that? Secretary UDALL. Mr. Moore tells me that there are 233 standan metropolitan statistical areas, and I do not know whether we car give you the percentage of population. We can certainly furnish ii for the record. Mr. EDMONDSON. Would you supply, for the record the number o~ people living in standard metropolitan statistical areas. Secretary UDALL. Yes. (The information referred to follows:) April 1065 population estimates (1960 figures for the two SMSA's define since the most recent compilation) indicate that approximately 124 milliol persons live in the 233 metropolitan statistical areas of the United States. (See also, p. 610, May 2, 1968.) Mr. EDMONDSON. Now, just a rough calculation in my own State] know that this 50,000 city level which I understand applies wouic probably take care of only 3 of the 6 congressional districts in tlu State of Oklahoma; I know that this population level which I under stand applies would probably take care of only 3 of the 6 congressiona districts in the State of Oklahoma.. Over in the neighboring State oi Arkansas, I think it would probably take care of 2 of the 4 congres sional districts in the State of Arkansas if my knowledge of th population statistics in the State is accurate. I think you are going t. lind a lot of congressional districts in the country left out of t.hi~ new device and its helpfulness if the Oklahoma-Arkansas situation i~ typical. Secretary UDALL. Congressman, Mr. Moore wants to comment. Lei me say, however, that the Senate committee, when they held our hear ing 3 weeks ago, inquired into this subject. I am sure this is a mattei the committee will want to go into. We felt we had a valid reasor and a good cutoff point with regard to the 125,000 population cutofi that was used for the standard statistical area. But I think the com- mittee has every right and reason to want to know why or what thE reasons are for drawing a line in any particular place. It is our anticipation of course that under the cash grant program which has traditionally been tire program that the smaller communi ties have looked to, that most of them will get their money from thai part of the program, and obviously if that is the case, the areas ir which most of the people live and most of the waste treatment con struction will take place, will be assisted under the new side of thE program. Mr. MOORE. Congressman, I just. want . to make the comment thai the act, prior t.o 1966, had a. limitation as to the dollar amount of mi individual grant. Tins limitation ranged from $250,000 prior to 1961 up to $2.4 million after 1965 for a muitimunicipal project. Tire doliai ceiling of necessity caused tire initial years of tire program to concen- trate primarily in less populous areas, and not in areas where wast treatment facilities were of such cost that this limit would not ma.k a major contribution to extremely large facilities. There is in the present act, and the Secretary has mentioned this there is in tire present act still the requirement that 50 percent of th first $100 million appropriated in any year has to be utilized for con- PAGENO="0041" 33 ~truction grants to smaller communities, that is those below 125,000 population. And so this feature of the existing statute is not changed with the contract authority. There would still be out of cash appropria- t~ions a fixed minimum sum allocated for construction grants to smaller communities. Another feature that I think needs to be emphasized is the fact that the priority systems for making the construction grant allocations are initially established by the States and reviewed by the Department of Interior. So that there is some flexibility within the statute as it presently exists to assure that the needs of'the smaller communities are met. Mr. EDMONDSON. I appreciate those facts, and I appreciate the fact that our municipalities will be dealt with fairly under the present law; but I am concerned that as you estimate your authorization for ap- propriations going up from $700 million in fiscal year 1969 to $1.25 billion for fiscal year ending June 30. 1971, that there is no equivalent escalation of any kind for the amount reserved for your smaller com- munities. Although I thing their needs are escalating also, as indus- tries moves into rural areas in a number of parts of the country, I think this need is going to be even greater. So I would like to have that matter particularly reviewed in this committee before we pro- ceed to mark up this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but in the interest of let- ting other niembers have a piece of the time here this morning, I will reserve mine. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. I am pleased to again welcome the very distinguished Secretary of Interior. I will not belabor the point, but I, too, am in- clined to share the same point of concern as expressed by the gentle- man from Oklahoma. As you know, Mr. Secretary, I have run some research and we find ourselves with 70 percent of the people living on 1 percent of the land in this country. I think the experience with the Interstate Highway System, plus the primary and secondary highway program, has in effect built the great interstate highways; but it has left the smaller communities with an inability to keep pace with the highway improvement requirements. I am hopeful that we could look at this particular situation as a means of possibly reflecting the flow of some of the population. INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL My question to you would be: What percentage of the overall pollu- tion problem as you view it is in the so-called public sector? Now, this is the local, State, and Federal municipalities, and the sewage treat- ment plants, and what percentage would be categorized as being in the private sector-I mean industry? Secretary JJDALL. Let my experts give me a figure. While they are getting it ready, let me say one thing. The sort of modern up-to-the- minute approach to waste treatment construction that we favor, be- cause we think this is the cheapest and most efficient way, is to have large regional units built wherever possible, where your industrial wastes are mingled with the other wastes of the community. This is what we favor, because we think it will hold costs down. It will give us higher efficiencies, and this is the thing that we have urged. PAGENO="0042" 34 This means that if you do it that way, the. local government, becaus it will build and run the facility, usually has its own contractual ar rangements with industry with regard to treating the particular typE of effluent that industry may have. The calculation on our study that we did last year is, we came u~ with $8 billion for the public sector, with a range of from $2. to $4.6 billion in the industrial sector. This is in the inital phase. Ths would seem to be better than 2 to 1 in terms of the total picture. Mr. CLAIJSEN. That is actually in the public sector? Secretary UDALL. Yes. The $8 billion is in the public sector; t.h $2.6 to $4.6 billion in the private sector. Mr. CLAUSEN. As you know, I was the author of an amendment dur- ing previous water quality legislation that would study ways and means of permitting the private sector, in particular, to have for in- stance tax credits or something like this to encourage them to do the job. Could you respond on the type of progress we are making and what your thoughts are on this? Secretary UDALL. Congressman, there was a great deal of discussion as I recall 2 years ago when we came before you on the 1966 act with regard to industry and the various tax credit proposals. I think we have seen a rather significant development in this field in the last 2 years. I do not see any loud demand by industry for in- centives. I think this is to the credit of industry, and I want to say why I think this has happened. Because the 1965 act and the 1966 act put industry nationwide on the same footing. In other words, if it is a steel company, pulp mill or whatever it is, and they are in Minnesota, California, or Arkansas, they are roughly going to have the same water quality standards. Therefore, industry realized that since the Nation now had a new goal of cleaning up its waters, and they were going to have to put in modern waste treatment works, that if they invested and other similar companies in other parts of the country were having to make similar investments, added to the cost of the product, then the normal economics were riot disrupted. I do not want to misrepresent the situation that. there are not in- dustries that still are not advocating tax incentives. But I think they realized that this really was putting a new burden on them, and that they said, "We are going to do business differently." When it was apparent, too, that there was difficulty in Congress in developing the right kind of tax incentives, this meant that industry would not drag their feet. I think industry has done quite well in the last year or two, and I think most of them are moving right ahead with your projects and programs, and I tend to want to give them a pat on the back, be- cause I think in the main industry has faced their responsibility and done quite well. I noticed about a year ago that Fortune magazine for much of the same reasons I have recited here came out against any tax incentives for pollution control on the basis that industry should do it as part of the cost of doing business and pass it on to the consumer. Mr. CLAUSEN. I have other questions, but I will yield. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Howard. PAGENO="0043" 35 OIL POLLUTION PROBLEM Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Secretary, I certainly wish to thank you for corn~ ing this morning. Although many of the questions had to do with bonding and establishing who is responsible for oil pollution spillage, I believe that we have another problem that has come to the floor recently with the experience that we had in San Juan with the Ocean Eagle. And that is: How we will combat an oil pollution disaster, breaking up of an oil tanker? We had something more than an inkling of the problem with the Torrey Canyon off the coast of Cornwall last year. There it was more of an established fact of merely fighting the oil. The ship was a complete wreck, just about all of the oil was out. It was coming toward shore and they had to combat it. However, with the Ocean Eagle, March 5, at the entrance to the Port of San Juan, there was some other factors involved. Certainly it was over a. million gallons of oil that had come from the ship, but we also had the ship itself with the stern resting on the edge of the channel just inside the harbor and the bow just outside the entrance of the harbor, where the water is a bit more rough. Something had to be done not only with the ship, but also with the oil that was coming out. One big question was : Who is in charge? And who has the authority, and who has the responsibility for what must be done in the coming days, and what interests are involved? With the Ocean Eagle itself certainly the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was involved. Being a hazard to the Port of San Juan, we had the Coast Guard vitally involved; with the possibility of something happening to the stern section of the ship and the channel being com- pletely blocked, we had the Navy involved. Also involved certainly was the company that owned the ship, the Ocean Eagle; and also the oil company that owned the cargo that was involved. The insurance company that insured both, which might very well be a foreign com- pany, was involved in it, as was the Federal Government with the Department of the Interior concerned with water pollution control, and this ship was flying the Liberian flag, and we had a foreign nation involved. I think from what I have seen and discussed with people who work with the operation of the Ocean Eagle, everyone concerned was very fortunate that the captain of the Port of San Juan, Capt. Warner K. Thompson, Jr., U.S. Coast Guard, was there. Because he did immedi- ately fill this vacuum of who is in charge here, and made decisions which turned out to be very correct decisions. In almost every instance he did have the complete cooperation of all these other areas that I have just mentioned who are involved with him. There was a responsibility that he had of the safety of the Port of San Juan. Under that he made many decisions for the good of the port, in attempting to keep it open or have it reopened as soon as possible. But very often he may have been treading on thin ice in making decisions that he made. It is fortunate that he did make them, because he was extremely able in this. But I think it pointed out the problem and the great necessity of having formulated a method of operation. We are continually having this problem. The Torrey Canyon was PAGENO="0044" 36 "one example and the Ocean Eagle was another. There was one in this morning's paper showing the oil slick in Hawaii. The ships are getting much larger. One that has just been completed or is being `completed is a ship of 500,000 tons, one tank of which holds as much oil as the entire Ocean Eagle, 6 million gallons. We are approaching a 100-foot draft in our ships. Around the world they are establishing manmade islands off the coasts. I believe there is one off the coast ol Kuwait, and there is talk of one off the east coast of the United States, where these huge floating "Rayburn Buildings" will stop at the island, transport its crude oil, and have it refined there and put in smaller ships that will go into the harbors. I know, representing probably the finest beach are.a in the country off the cost of New Jersey, I would be a bit hesitant to see one of these islands off my coast with all the damage that we could have. In Puerto Rico in the operation there was one difficulty where they were spraying this emulsifier by helicopter, which is apparently much more efficient than what we were doing in England with the TorTey Canyon, dumping the barrels over and then churning them up with fire hoses and even with the small boats in San Juan. But the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, after a day and a half, stated they did not want this to occur any more, and it had to be stopped. So this may have been a better method of operation, but there was a local conflict there. In your statement, No. 6 on page 10, you "require the owners of ves- sels and shore installations to remove discharged oil from navigable waters and adjoining shorelines or to pay the cleanup costs," and so forth. There was a danger in San Juan while removing the oil oii board, the stern could have fallen overboard and completely blocked the Port of San Juan and would have had Navy ships inside if it had not been clone by a competent company. It is said there are only about five maj or marine salvage companies aroimcl the world. And it should be in the interest of those involved that we get the best and most com- petent operators in this case. Now, we had to wait until the insurance company and the owner of the ship and the Gulf Oil Co. abandoned the cargo and the ship to the Corps of Engineers before they could officially `act. The Coin- monwealth of Puerto Rico had to agree that they would take a respon- sibility of signing a contract with the major salvage company in hopes that a few days later the Corps of Engineers would relieve them of that responsibility, which did happen. I could very well see a local authority not wanting to put them- selves in that position. I want to thank you for the time of getting this statement in the record as well as what we have been talking about. I certainly hope this committee and the agency involved will try and establish a method of procedure in combating these, so that there will be no gaps in the responsibility and authority and no overlaps in re- sponsibility and authority, and we will have a method of combating what is increasingly becoming a more costly and more dangerous threat to the beaches around the United States and around the world.' I do not think we should have to depend upon the availabality of a person as competent as Captain Thompson was in this instance in San Juan. PAGENO="0045" 37 I hope that before we are finished, we will do whatever we have to [egislatively and administratively so that we will have a clearer cut method available to combat disaster such as this. Thank you. Secretary IJDALL. Congressman, I hope you will look at the details Df the legislation we have proposed, because we have tried to encom- ass the existence that the British had with the To~rey Canyon. We had this top-level report that. was done by the Department of Trans- portation and my own Department last summer. I put some of my rery best people on it, and I know Secretary Boyd did, too. I think we have a plan, and a workable one, and a solution. I think we also must recognize that in the type of high-energy econ- )Ifl~ that we have, these big tankers are going to be moving around, ind I think we have got to make it plain to the transportation industry hat a very high degree of care must be taken, because you can do mormous damage to other resources. You could literally wreck the conomy of some of your seacoast regions, as happened in England. I think this is a very serious responsibility that this committee indertakes in writing legislation of this kind. After all, the type of accident that occurred can be insured against, md I think the most important thing above all else, as far as I am ~oncerned, is that once we establish the fact that we are going to expect )eople to use great care, if they are transporting a substance of this rind, is to have an action plan so that we can minimize or offset he damage. I noticed Jersey Standard announced just a few days ago what hey call a dispersant. We have not had a chance to analyze this-I mow they have a very fine research organization-to know now effec- lye it will be. I am not commenting on its efiectivenss. I am sure the hemists can come up with an answer, so that we can be ready to take are of these accidents that occur despite all the care to prevent them. I think it is very important that whoever makes the mistakes ought o pay the cost of the cleanup, rather than have the taxpayers do it. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to add my compliments for the plans that you mave outlined here for dealing with major problems such as oil )ollution from shore and ship installations and supplying drainage, nd so forth. However, I would like to ask you about the second paragraph on age 8. CUTOFF OF PREFINANCING PROVISION As you know, I am from Buffalo, N.Y. About 4 years ago, we iii the ~uffalo area became extremely concerned and enthusiastically so bout the condition of Lake Erie. At about that time the Secretary of Iealth, Education, and Welfare convened an enforcement con- erence to which the States bordering Lake Erie came, includ- ig my own, of New York. At first they were a little reluctant, but hen they came. Out of that grew a determination to tackle this roblem. New York went ahead with its $2 billion pure waters pro- PAGENO="0046" 38 gram. The Governor came down here and asked us to include in the legislation a prefinancing provision which I supported. The commit- tee went ahead and we put it in. Now you are proposing to' knock it out, starting July 1. And in that year, beginning July 1, New York, which is moving ahead, expects to approve about $534 million in. projects, all of which they expect would be eligible for the Federal share of about 55 perceiit, or $294 million. Well, now, of course, we know that New York isn't going to get that much, because we don't have that much available nationally. But with the prefinancing assurance in there, they have at least assurance of eventually being paid that amount. Now, it seems to me you are proposing to change the rules in the middle of the game. New York has tailored its whole approach to this. Now you come in any say, all right, you are started, but we are changing the rules. What I wonder is how you estimate that this is going to affect States like New York, and secondly, what would be wrong in leaving the prefinancing provision in, and offering States an option of either going the bonding approach or going ahead with the assurance that eventually they would be reimbursed in cash. Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I certainly know your keen interest in water pollution control, that with the action that your State is taking, this is something you will want to scrutinize very carefully. Governor Rockefeller himself did come down and testify before the Senate committee. In fact, I had a brief conversation with him about this subject. It is our feeling, we may be wrong, that the new approach would be superior to the provision that you and others got written into the 1966 act. We certainly want to encourage States to take vigorous action, the way the State of New York has. They have had their own problems in tooling up, and they are getting about ready to go, as you have indicated. And I think it is important that we key the two programs in a way that is equitable in terms of the total national program and also fits the other guidelines that we have laid down here. So I know you will want to study this very carefully. I am sure the staff people will try to enligthen you as to both the advantages or disadvantages, il there are any, of the new approach as against the prefinancing pro- vision of the 1966 act. Mr. MCCARTHY. What would you say about having an option? I understand they are all geared up with prefinancing assurance. What would be wrong with leaving that in and also providing the bonding approach for those who want to go that route? Secretary UDALL. Well, I would not want to comment categorically That might be a positive approach, Congressman. We will certainly look at that with you. I did not have a chance to read Governoi Rockefeller's testimony. I do not know what he presented. But J think we ought to éonsider any alternatives that are reasonable or this. Mr. MCCARTHY. I do have the Governor's statement before th Senate. He will be here tomorrow. But in a statement before th( Senate, he strenuously objects to the removal of the prefinancing pro vision. And after reading his testimony and reading the bill and youi testimony, it seems to me that perhaps a reasonable approach wouk PAGENO="0047" 39 be to offer an option. And as you say, this might be considered. I bhink you cannot resolve it today, obviously, but I hope that as the ~ommittee continues its deliberations with your able top lieutenants Liere, that maybe we can work something out on this. Secretary TJDALL. Fine. Thank you. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment, if I might. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Hughes. Mr. HUGHES. One of the advantages of the approach that is re- Elected in the administration proposal, we believe, as distinguished from the prefinancing, is that it deals more equitably, perhaps more )n a priority basis, in that' it does not so, much limit the capacity to ~o ahead to those States which on one `basis or another can `provide their own financial base for proceeding. It does give more substantial tssis'tance, we think, to other States `and to communities which other- wise might be left out. We certainly would try and keep an open mind rn this point, but one of the things that we would need to watch is ;he impact of a combined prefinancing and contract financing ap- )roach on the `communities in the States with lesser capacity, lesser inancial capacity. Mr. MCCARTHY. Of course, the other side of the coin that you have ust turned up is that those States who are ready to move and have the financial wherewithal should not be penalized simply because they ~re ready to move ahead and are in a financial position to do it. If we pull a rug out from under them, by pulling this out, it is going to' e a step backward, rather than a, step forward for those big States ike New York, who have moved ahead. Mr. HUGHES. Certainly they should not be penalized. The contract inancing approach would put them on the same basis as other States md their inherent advantage and their capacity to lock up future bliocations of Federal funds would be somewhat more limited. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to `the gentleman from Nebraska. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Secretary, I have one or two questions that con- ~ern me. DEBT FINANCING PROPOSAL APPEARS TO DIMINISH STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY Would you comment on whether or not we are considering land- nark legislation with reference to Federal water pollution control, ~eeping in mind the original declaration of Congress on the first act )rovidmg for primarily State responsibility. In these bills we are alking about approval of water standard, we are talking about see- )ndary control, and legalistic methods of handling the discharge. We Lre talking about guaranteeing Federal bonds by the Federal Gov- rnment, the Secretary having discretion to determine whether or iot the bonds are feasible. We are talking about a toilet tax-or a use tax-and we are talk- ng about all `different approaches to this thing. So it looks to me ike it is more and more of a thrust for the Federal Government to PAGENO="0048" 40 step in and say the States have not done it,, and now we are going to take over. Would you have any comment on this statement? Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I think I can make a pretty clear- cut statement on that subject, because I think both the Water Quality Act of 1965, if you study it carefully, as well as the 1966 Act, both give the states and local communities, I would say, the lead role in many aspects of water pollution clean-up. Now, obviously, if the Fed- eral Government is going to guarantee the bonds in order to get a low- er bond rate, it has got to be concerned about some of the details. Maybe we have too many details written into the act, but I would think, for example, with respect to this user fee provision, that we do have a legitimate concern, if we are going to guarantee the bonds of the community, that they have what we would consider a modern financing method of paying off their own bonding obligations, and this is the reason that we feel that the cities that qualify under this pro- gram ought to have what the best cities already have, namely, a sound user fee system, so that the users are paying for the service they receive. Mr. DENNEY. What are we going to do about a little community of 500 people in discharging sewage into a stream that reaches interstate streams, which cannot have enough users to pay this off? Secretary UDALL. Well, I think the answer for the small commu- nity is that they would not qualify in any event. Under this bond approach that we are presenting here today, it is only the larger com- munities that would qualify; the smaller community would come in under- Mr. DENNEY. Under direct grant? Secretary UDALL. That is right. Mr. DENNEY. I believe that is all. (Mr. Howard assumed the chair.) Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry I was not able to be here during your entire testimony. My plane was a little late. And I, too appreciate the effort which you are putting forward. We have, as you know, operated on largely a nonpartisan basis re- lating to water pollution matters. The last few bills with their con- ference reports have passed unanimously, as I remember, by the House. This was done, however, only after exhaustive study of the proposals made and rather substantial changes were made, both on this side and the Senate side as well as in conference. So my question will be directed to an effort to get a clear picture of what we are getting involved in-what this bill will actually do-in the brief time that I have. OIL POLLUTION CLEANUP IN CASE OF UNKNOWN CULPRIT No. 1, I see in the morning paper, April 23, that there were oil clicks found off Hawaii's famous Waikiki Beach: Crude oil from a still undetermined source has left a slimy black ring along a 3-mile stretch of beach. The Coast Guard spotted two more slicks yesterday. The oil pollution proposal you sent to us would not in any way effect this necessary cleanup job, would it? It would not impose tiny iequire- ment that this be cleaned up? PAGENO="0049" 41 Secretary UDALL. It would give us authority-let us assume two situations. One situation that we can determine who- Mr. CRAMER. This is undetermined- Secretary UDALL (continuing). Who caused it, or in the other event that we could not determine that this would give us authority to clean it up, authority that we don't now have. Mr. CRAMER. The bill, as I understand it, gives you authority to clean up only when you have prospect of recouping. Secretary UDALL. No, I do not think it is that restrictive. Mr. CRAMER. Where there has been a discharge and the owner refuses to clean up. When you do not know who the person is that made the discharge, you are out of business, as you drafted the bill, as I read it. Secretary TJDALL. Well, without conceding the poiiit or settling the point, I certainly think that we ought to have broad enough authority that we can protect the beaches and the vital resources of the country under all situations that might arise. If the language is not that broad, perhaps we should take another look at it with you. Mr. CRAMER. Let us look at the language. There is no use batting it back and forth. It speaks for itself. On page 6, line 4: "The owner or operator of a vessel from which oil is discharged into the con- tiguous zone shall immediately notify the Secretary or his delegate of such dis- charge and shall remove such discharged oil in accordance with regulations pre- scribed under this section. If such owner or operator fails to so act, the Secretary may remove such oil or arrange for its removal, and such owner or operator and the vessel shall be liable, notwithstanding any other provision of law * * ~" That is what it says. So this `Waikiki Beach problem would not be solved by your bill, as I gather. Secretary UDALL. Maybe a clarifying amendment is needed there. But if we do not know who the owner is, I would assume it falls under the category of someone failing to act, and I think you are probably right that we need a clarifying language to make it clear that we are going to clean it up, whether we know who the culprit is or not. NEED FOR CERTAINTY IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION Mr. CRAMER. There are some other aspects of oil pollution-defini- tions and so forth-that I would like to get into, but apparently time does not permit it. Maybe somebody else is going to testify on the subject, I do not know. I would hope so, because I have some other questions relating to definitions. We just amended the Oil Pollution Act in very substantial respects in 1956. We amended the `Water Pollution Control Act and called it the Clean Rivers Act. I would hope that one of these days that we get a little~ bit of certainty into this program. We keep changing the signals. About every 2 years we change the signals, change the formula, change the ground rules, and yet insist that the States go ahead and get the standards together and finalize them and get on with the job. Now, we are changing formulas again. 94-376-6S------4 PAGENO="0050" 42 Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, let me say two things: No. 1, there is no more vital piece of legislation my Department is interested in than this, and I will have my first team to work with you on any detail and answer any questions that we can. We are in a period right now where we are writing the basic frame- work oil pollution control legislation. At the time of the Torrey Can- yon disaster a year ago, then all of us went back to look at the old 1924 act, and the other acts, to see how we would handle this, if this occurred off our shores. We found out that our laws were very inade- quate. And that is the reason we made a study. We came in with recommendations, and the Senate did pass a bill last year. So I think this is basic legislation that is very vital. I hope the committee will look at it closely and perfect it and improve it if it can. DEBT FINANCING BILL NOT A `CURE-ALL" Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would hope we could get this quesLion of standards finalized without constant changes in the formula. The States will know what is expected of them. The industry will know what is expected of them, and we can get on with the job of cleaning up the rivers. Of course, the bill we have before us is largely a finance bill, and it relates in that respect only to sewage treatment plants, right? Secretary TJDALL. To municipal works; that is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So even if we pass this bill and the Government com- mits itself to x billions of dollars as guarantor of these bonds, you are still not going to have "clean rivers." S Industry, agriculture, surface drainage, surface mining drainage, they are all still going to be problems. I think we ought to be honest with the American taxpayer in saying, "Now, look, if we put up this x billions of dollars, guarantee it, guarantee that we are going to appropriate for it for 30 years in the future", we can't tell them we are going to have clean rivers when we do that. We are just going to make a step in that direction. Secretary TJDALL. I think we are going to see some rivers and lakes cleaned up. I think we have the technological capability of doing it. If we will shift into high gear and get on the schedule that Congress itself laid out for us 2 years ago, if industry will continue to move at the tempo they have been moving at the last year, I think you are going to see some very significant improvement in the water quality of many of the rivers and lakes in this country, something we can take some satisfaction in. INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PROBLEM Mr. CRAMER. Well, that is the goal we all seek. I think, though, we ought to be honest with the taxpayer that this bill falls short of ap- proaching that goal as it relates to Federal financing. It deals only on the financing standpoint of sewage treatment plants, principally government owned. It does not solve the problem of industrial pollu- tion. And I see no real leadership along that line in trying to get tax deductions or tax credits for industry in order to encourage industry PAGENO="0051" 43 to do its job of cleaning up. If we can ask the taxpayers to spend $2.2 billion, plus whatever additional obligations are involved in this, why cannot some real leadership be given to encouraging industry to do its job? Secretary IJDALL. Congressman, I commented earlier, before you came in, on the industry aspect. I think industry is doing quite well. Mr. CRAMER. It could do better with incentive, though, could it not? Secretary TJDALL. Well, they might do better with incentives, but I am very pleased that most of them are not sitting waiting for incen- tive. Most of them know that we mean business with water quality standards, and they are changing to good modern equipment in their new plants. I think this is a very encouraging sign. Industry is not complaining as much as we think. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I have heard from quite a few. I did not say that they are complaining, but they need assistance, and they need help. I personally favor tax credits, deductions or incentives in some way to get them into a better position to help them clean up the rivers. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS You stated that over half the States standards have been approved. Is it not true that 10 States whose standards were approved by you have been called back because you have changed your mind as to what the standards should be in order to meet your approval? Secretary TJDALL. With 10 of the States, these were the first States that we approved, we have not basically changed the approval; we have raised one or two new questions- Mr. CRAMER. Like what? Secretary TJDALL. With them. Mr. CRAMER. Like what, for 1nstance? - Secretary IJDALL. \Vhat actually occurred, Congressman, is that we went through the process of setting standards. We learned certain things that we did not know in the beginning. We surfaced certain problems that we were not aware of, and therefore we improved the standards and we have had to go back to the earliest States that we approved in June last year, some of them, and say that we would like to have a couple of changes made. But we have not disapproved their standards, and we have at the present approved 31 States. We have several others that are nearly ready for approval. Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate that. However, I would like to know what some of the changes were. "NO DEGRADATION POLICY'~ Secretary IJDALL. Well, the main change, the one that has gotten the most publicity, was the change with regard to what has been called the "no degradation policy" and most of the States are accepting this. Some are arguing with us about it, and we are compromising, working out compromise language with most of them to incorporate what we consider sound language to implement the 1965 Act. Mr. CRAMER. Now, does "no degradation of existing water quality" mean that on a river, although it is adaptable to industrial develop- ment, for instance, or farming or what-have-you,-surface drainage PAGENO="0052" 44 is just as much a problem-where that river today is without that in- dustry or farming, and is a relatively clean river, that in the future this "non-degradation" means that river must remain in the same quality? Secretary TJDALL. Our interpretation- Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, that industry could not come in in some instances? Secretary TJDALL. Our interpretation of the :1965 Act is that the Con- gress intended it as a water improvement act, as an improvement of quality, and that the whole concept was that we would be enhancing the quality as the program moved ahead. Now, this does not mean no new development and I have had to ex- plain this laboriously to some of the State people that were concerned about it. Let's take an average river that has several cities that dis- charge effluent, some treated, some untreated, and several industries, some put treated effluent in, some untreated effluent, and the "no- degradation policy" there would mean, for example, that as your clean-up program moved forward, and the minute one community or one industry cleaned up its effluent substantially, the river would be of higher quality, and the other thing that is enormously helpful is that most of the new moderii plants, industrial plants that are going on, are installing, because of the water quality standards, very modern equipment, and therefore the amount of effluent that they put in that diminishes the quality is rather small as compared with the earlier plants. Therefore, nondegradation does not mean no new industrial development. It simply means we have got to keep a clean-up program going in order to accommodate new industry. Mr. CRAMER. Is it your philosophy that there are no rivers, that there are no streams, the use of which by industry is justified to the extent of some pollution some degradation of the rivers, necessitated by the nature of the industry? Secretary TJDALL. Some States have deliberately in their water quality standards set aside some rivers. There are prime trout streams and your upland streams, and they have set them aside to not be used for certain purposes and not be polluted in any way, and I think this is a very good policy. Mr. CRAMER. I asked you the~ reverse question, however. Are there streams in which you would approve some degradation because of their particular applicability for industrial development and so forth? Well, let me give you an example-in other words, you cannot have clean waters on every river where you have industry no matter what cleanup effort they make. Industry in some forms by its nature has to cause some degree of pollution. MThen you say "no degradation," that would seem to me to limit the use of the shoreland by the control of standards in that manner. Congressman, there are two answers. I tried to give you the one a moment ago, with regard to how we feel this will actually work. And as the cleanup program moves forward, there is room to accom- modate additional uses-additional industrial uses, let us say, or addi- tional municipal loads, and still have what will probably be a cleaner river. Then we have other situations. Let us take the State of Alaska, which is largely undeveloped. They have many large rivers there PAGENO="0053" 45 where there is no industry, no community, no pollution at all. They came to me and said, "Well, what does this policy mean? That we can't have cities? We can't locate industry?" We do have an exception clause that we have written into the antidegradation provision that opens the door to exceptional circumstances, with the burden, of course, on the State or on the industry to show that such circum- stances do exist. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I do not want to belabor it interminably, but if, in fact, the hearing record establishes that the maximum value and use of the stream can be achieved by water quality standards somewhat below existing levels, then do you think that you, under the present law, have authority to arbitrarily, despite that hearing record, refuse to give effect to such standards? Secretary TJDALL. In effectuating the "no degradation" policy, we had to attempt to interpret the meaning of the 1965 act. I know there are those who disagree with us, and I saw a letter from the U.S. Cham- ber of Commerce yesterday on this, the legal opinion that they have gotten that disagrees with us, but it is our view that the "no degrada- tion" policy effectively asserts the policy that Congress itself wrote into the 1965 act. This was contemplated as a water enhancement law. The whole tenor of the 1965 act, if you look at it, was one of water im- provement, water enhancement, raising the quality rather than low- ermg it. I think we can do that. I do not think this is going to inhibit new industry. It is going to mean that new industry is going to have to put in very good pollution control equipment. It is going to mean that we are going to have to get the cleanup program going. I think, if we do that, that in these industrialized areas, and along the sections of streams and tributaries where there will always be some effluents and some poTlution, we can still have no degradation in effect, and have increased uses of these waters. Mr. CRAMER. Well, maybe the choice of terminology is not too good, when you say "nondegradation," and in the next breath you say "~We are going to make some exceptions like Alaska." Similarly, confusion is created in the case of the suggestion I had relating to new streams that have iiot been developed industrially, or agriculturally, where you are going to have surface drainage in agri- culture. You are going to have some pollution in industry no matter how much they are going to try to clean it up. I do not think you will ever find a~ puipmill that is not going to have a little bit of pollution. Secretary TJDALL. That is true, there is going to be some effluent. Mr. CRAMER. Does that mean by these standards these new areas are not going to be opened and developed, because the result would be some degradation of that stream? Secretary TJDALL. No. We don't interpret it that way at all. And I believe that this policy can be effectuated and that we can achieve what I think Congress wanted without seriously inhibiting the industrial growth of the country. I just do not think that this is going to be the effect. Mr. CRAMER. And the standards that have been set are t.hat you as Secretary could make exceptions? PAGENO="0054" 46 Secretary TJDALL. We do have authority to make exceptions where there are hardships or special social or economic reasons. Mr. CRAMER. The State does not have such authority? Secretary TJDALL. We write this kind of language into the State standards. The States will administer them, and we will have to get back into the picture only if we disagree with the way that the State is enforcing the standards. That is the reason we want- Mr. CRAMER. Why do you not permit the States to having a State agency make those exceptions under certain standards, rather than you, as Secretary, judging every single case? Secretary UDALL. Well, I woul.d expect only very exceptional cases to actually get to me, or even get to Washington. Mr. CRAMER. I do not want to see the Secretary of Interior or any Federal agency saying to every industry that "You either can or can- not locate" or that any new farm can be established or not established along a given stream. I do not want to see this as strictly the Secretary's power. That is what bothers me. Secretary UDALL. Congressman- Mr. CRAMER. I do not think we intended that in the 1966 act. Secretary UDALL. I do not think we are setting up that kind of ad- ministration. And I would predict that in 99 out of 100 cases the State people merely will be touching base with our people, and that the local or regional level will make most of the decisions on these matters. And we will be brought in only when there is a loud outcry, usually from sportsmen and conservationists, that there is a flagrant example of degradation of a stream or river, and that the water quality stand- ards are not being kept. So we don't want to go in the business of running this program from Washington. We think Congress contem- plated that if the States would fix suitable standards, the States would do most of the administering and the enforcing, and we would get in only if they did not do their job right. Mr. CRAMER. Well, even if the hearing record clearly shows that you cannot have this industry X on this river without some degradation, but that this river can be used and should. be used for agricultural purposes, or for industrial purposes, that State does not have the power to say "Yes," because that is an exception to the standards. Only you have that power. Secretary TJDALL. No. Because we end up with a "no degradation" section in the State standards that we are agreed upon. Now they will administer their own standards. 1Ye will get into the Picture oniy if their administration breaks down. Mr. CRAMER. When somebody objects to how they are doing it? Secretary UDALL. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. So you have the final say? Secretary UDALL. We get into the big fight, as we usually do-when there is a big fight between the sportsmen and chambers of commerce over location of a new factory that is going to ruin the fishing some- where. That is when we are going to be in the picture. Only then- usually only then. Mr. CRAMER. What kind of headache is that you are asking for? Secretary UDALL. That is the kind of headaches I have every day. Mr. CRAMER. An Excedrin headache? [Laughter.] PAGENO="0055" 47 PRESENT SERIOUS ECONOMIC SITUATION Mr. CRAMER. I wanted to just take a minute on money. I do not quite understand in the bill how much tax money is needed, particularly under these circumstances where tight money, high interest rates, and now unbalanced budgets-and more of them come with no relief in sight-and serious inflation problems and escalating costs of the war. Here we want an escalated program and the President tells us we are going to ask Congress to cut these expenditures. Every program he sends up practically says "Let us start a new one. Let us spend more money." This is an example. I do not think we can judge this bill in the context of what is going on in America today and in the world relating to the value of the American dollar. It is in trouble. I know I do not have to tell you that. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman made it very clear to the American people that it is in worse trouble since 1931. That is a pretty serious consideration we have to take into account. So I want to know how much money we are talking about. Secretary IJDALL. Congressman, I am in a very happy situation, be- cause I cannot argue with some of the things you just said, but, if you pass this law as we propose it, in fiscal year 1969 there is no additional Federal money involved. I cannot say that for the following year. This is for the reason, you see, that we are picking up the difference between authorization and appropriation by this commitment to pay interest and principal on indebtedness, except the first payment will not come due at least for a year. So I am not so sure, if we had not fortunately come out this way, that I would have gotten this by Mr. Hughes in the Bureau of the Budget- Mr. CRAMER. He thinks everything is going to be all right next year? Secretary TJDALL. I do not know. Mr. CRAMER. Is everything going to be all right, Mr. Budget Maker, next year? Is everything going to be all right next year? Mr. I-IUGHES. I am sure, Mr. Cramer, that the budget next year, like the budget this year, and the last. year and 10 years ago, will be the source of considerable controversy and disagreement as to whether it is high enough or low enough. And there will be people on both sides. Mr. CRAMER. I know. It is too high. Mr. HUGHES. Pardon? COST OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT PROGRAM Mr. CRAMER. It is too high, and thi.s will make it higher. $225 mu- [ion is a budget request for 1969; right? Secretary UDALL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. That leaves you money to put into this of $475 million, iccording to your approach. PAGENO="0056" 48 Where does the bill say you are limited to that $475 million? Mr. HUGHES. Could I respond to that? I took a run at it when Mr. Cleveland raised the question. The bill itself does not limit the total commitments. The Secretary's letter, the transmittal letter, does indicate that it is our intent to establish a program level equal to the authorization that was estab- lished by the Congress- Mr. CRAMER. If you have a new administration and decide it has a different intent, then there is no limit. Mr. HUGHES. In any event, Mr. Cramer, the budget proposal in the proposed program level will be subject to congressional review through the Appropriations Committee. Mr. CRAMER. By the Appropriations Committee? We do not have anything to say about it, the authorizing committee? Mr. HUGHES. Congress has something to say about it. Mr. CRAMER. We do not have anything to say about the authorizing aspect of it, setting the limits by authorization for long-range plan- ning and so forth? We have established the point that there is really no limit- Mr. HUGHES. There is no statutory limit. Mr. CRAMER (continuing). If the executive branch does not want to exercise limit and the Congress itself does not want to by appropria- tion exercise limit. Mr. HUGHES. There is no statutory limit in the bill itself. Mr. CRAMER. Why is there no limit? Mr. HUGHES. I think there could be, Mr. Cramer. We struggled with the problem of wisdom of statuatory limitation, versus an expression of intent, and we came out in the fashion that I have indicated. Mr. CRAMER. Well, can you tell me how much money this bill is sug- gesting the Government be committed to guarantee in the future? Mr. HUGHES. The bill and the accompanying letter suggests a pro- gram level equivalent to the authorized level established in the basic Water Pollution Control Act. Mr. CRAMER. I want to know how this is going to balloon. How much is the Federal Government obligated and how much could it obligate itself as a guarantor, moneywise, to-what figure? This includes the local share, too. Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. Its contingent liability through the guarantee would include the local share as well as the Federal share~ Mr. CRAMER. How much are we talking about? You are talking about under your letter suggesting a limitation, which is not binding, oi course, $700 million, for 1969; you have $475 million surplus, whicl is just one year amortization, right, of a 30-year contract? Mr. HUGHES. $475 million is the program level which we have pro- posed be supported through this contract procedure. We have not pro- posed amortization payments of $475 million in 1969. Mr. CRAMER. How can you start entering in contracts in 1969 if yoi~ do not have an appropriation limitation of some sort? You do nol know what it is going to be in 1970. But you will be encouraging thE local municipalities to enter under contracts and bond issues in 1969 Mr. HUGHES. The starting point, of course, would be the authoriza tion for the program, and the appropriation actions would have tc PAGENO="0057" 49 follow in support of the authorizing action; the appropriation action would govern the program size. Mr. CRAMER. I want a figure. Under this legislation, how much could we obligate the Federal Government, to guarantee in the future for 30 years? Mr. HUGHES. The total Federal obligation- Mr. CRAMER. The guarantee figure. Mr. HtTGHES. The guarantee figure would be the combined level of the program, Federal and local share, whatever that might be after the action of the Appropriations Committee and the Congress. Mr. CRAMER. Well, that is still not answering my question. Let's assume that the appropriations conform to the 3 years-$700 million, $1 billion, and $1.25 billion, and assume the budget requests are going to be about the same as they have been, $225 million, and then the remainder is $2.275 billion over a three-year period; right? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. That would be the Federal portion. Mr. CRAMER. Of 1 year's or 3 years' guarantee- Mr. HUGHES. Three years. Mr. CRAMER. It would be one-tenth of the bond value over approxi- mately a 3-year period. Mr. HUGHES. The $2.275 billion wou'd be the total Federal commit- ment. The Federal principal commitment would be $2.275 billion. Mr. CRAMER. So what figure are we talking about? Mr. HUGHES. The total Federal principal commitment would be the 2.275 billion. The additional Federal guarantee liability would de~ pend on the local Federal ratio and might approximate that in size. Mr. CRAMER. Whether it is 30 percent or 40 or 50 percent Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. So we are talking about $4.5 billion? Mr. HUGHES. Perhaps, of contingent liability. Mr. CRAMER. Over a 3-year period, of contingent liability. Mr. HUGHES. That would be the total program size in that 3-year period. NO EXACT PRECEDENT FOR CONTRACT PROGRAM Mr. CRAMER. Let's get to this interesting gimmick on paying back interest for interest-bearing municipal bonds. I woud like to ask you first, is there any precedent for this? Mr. HUGHES. There are, of course, other precedents for an interest subsidy, but there is no four-square precedent for this kind of pro- gram. There are subsidy payments in various forms. Mr. CRAMER. I want to know what the precedent is for forcing a municipality into issuing non-tax-exempt bonds, as compared to tax- exempt bonds? Mr. HUGHES. This offers the community an option- Mr. CRAMER. If they get the Federal money, they have to go into' non-tax-exempt bonds. Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. All right. What precedent is there for that? PAGENO="0058" 50 Mr. HUGHES. This is as far as I know in the nature-this is a unique program. This is an effort to meet a Federal commitment by some- what unique means. Mr. CRAMER. I understand the objective of it. I asked you what the precedent is. Mr. HUGHES. There is no four-square precedent. Mr. `CRAMER. There is no precedent? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. INTEREST COST Mr. CRAMER. I will ask the next question this way: What is going to be the interest cost-I am interested, as is the Secretary, in build- ing these plants. However, over 50 percent of this Federal money going into it will be for paying interest, will it not? Mr. HUGI-lEs. Yes. The interest cost would be substantial in any event. Mr. CRAMER. So your interest would be, what, about 120 percent of the principal, would it not Mr. HUGI-IES. The interest would be some rate differentials, but of course whether the money were borrowed to make grants or whether the concept adopted here of an amortization payment were used; the interest cost would remain very substantial. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, this is the point I want to get to. This $2.275 billion over a 3-year period that ~we are irrevocthly commit- ting Congress to appropriate for over a 30-year period with 120 per- cent interest, means we are going to get, around a billion dollars' worth of actual construction, plus assuming 50 peicent paid by local funds, maybe $2 billion. Mr. HUGHES. The amount that we referred to, the $2.275 billion, I believe, is the principal amount we are talking about. We are talking about program level. The interest cost would be in addition as they would be if there was a cash grant made. In either event, the interest cost would be added to that. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Is not my analysis correct that the actual construction resulting from the Federal share would be about a billion dollars? The interest cost cuts it into less than ha If? Mr. HUGhES. I think, Mr. Cramer, we may not be communicating here. We contemplate a program level which would be increased, a program level which would be increased by the amount of the $2.275 billion, and there would be financing costs in addition to that. Mr. CRAMER. I am not talking about interest subsidy now. I am talking about interest cost on the Federal 50-percent share. It would be in excess of 50 percent of the appropriations? Mr. HUGHES. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. And your total appropriation would be $2.275 billion, including iiiturest-sure. Mr. HUGHES. No, sir. The $2.275 billion is contemplated additional program level above the grant level, and interest costs would accrue in addition to that. Mr. CRAMER. You mean this represents only principal cost? PAGENO="0059" 51 Mr. HTJGHES. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That is very interesting. Then we are really talking about at least twice as much contract authority. We are talking about $5 billion instead of $2.275 billion. That is very interesting. I did not read that into the bill. Mr. HUGI-lEs. We are talking about a program, additional program level, of $~275 billion, and- Mr. CR~iirR. Plus interest. Mr. }hJGITEs. Plus interest. Mr. CRAMER. Which is 120 percent more. Mr. HUGHES. I am not sure of the 120 percent. Mr. CRAMER. Approximately. Mr. HUGHES. Certainly the interest would be in addition. I say again, Mr. Cramer, the interest costs are additional, whether it is a cash grant or an amortization payment. Mr. CRAMER. That has the effect of doubling these authorizations so far as Federal commitments are concerned. Mr. 1-TUGHE5. I do not so regard it. The program level would be the same as though those amounts were appropriated in the 3 years in the form of cash grants. Mr. CRAMER. Plus interest. Mr. HUGI-lEs. Plus interest. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So in effect what we are doing by this method, we are getting 50 percent or less construction as compared to what we would get out of direction appropriations, using this hond issue gimmick. Mr. HUGhEs. No. That is not correct. Mr. CRAMER. What is correct? Mr. HUGHES. We would get the same level ol construction that we would have gotten had those been cash grants. The interest cost in the one case would be paid in the process of amortization, and in the other case, it would have been paid in the form of interest on the public debt to finance the cash grant. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would like to make sure I understand it, that this limitation which you say you are willing to accept, but you don't have to if you don't want to, of $700 million for 1969, $1 billion for 1970, $1.25 billion for 1971, is that principal amortization or principal and interest amortization? Mr. HUGHES. That is principal. That is the program level, the addi- tional program level, represented by the contract face value, if you will. Mr. CRAMER. That means it would cost double that, at lease, because of interest and carrying charges. Mr. HUGHES. The interest cost would be in addition as they would be if this were a cash grant. Secretary TJDALL. Let me make two points, to help clarify this. Mr. CRAMER. That is assuming you have to borrow the money, is that. what you mean? Mr. HUGHES. The value of money is the value of money, whether it is available- Mr. CRAMER. Assuming we do not pass the surtax and eventually balance the budget? Mr. HUGHES. The value of money is the interest cost of money. PAGENO="0060" 52 Mr. CRA1\IER. I understand. Mr. HUGHES. As we see it, it is the proper charge against the pro- gram, no matter how the program is financed, whether on amortiza- tion basis- M:r. CRAMER. You mean even if the taxpayers pay it to you direct, increased taxes, and Congress cuts spending, and we end up with a balanced budget, what happens to the interest. Mr. HUGHES. The money has value. It is available for other pur- poses. If we do not have it for this purpose, we can use it otherwise. Mr. CRAMER. You can have a little trouble convincing taxpayers that there is no difference between their having to pay this double amount as compared to a single amount. Mr. HUGI-TES. It seems to me the taxpayers would appreciate the fact that cash has a value. Mr. CRAMER. They know it better than anybody else. They have to give it away, give it to Uncle Sam. Mr. I-IUGHES. I certainly agree with that, and the value is expressed in terms of interest. Mr. CRAMER. I did not mean to cut you off, Mr. Secretary. Secretary TJDALL. I want to make two points. We have written this flexibly- Mr. CRAMER. You sure have. I agree with you. Secretary UDALL. So that if we have a situation where we can in- crease the amount of the cash grant program, we could come in at any time and pay particular bonds off in full or make advanced pay- ments. The other point I would make is that the water pollution control program is being financed by bonds at the present time-the local communities are paymg interest, the states which are making a State constribution are doing it by bonds. So that Federal Government, in terms of its paying extra costs, is doing nothing more than State or local governments are doing. And I think we simply ought to make that record so that everyone understands it. Mr. CRAMER. IVell, I understand, Mr. Secretary, that you will be back next week. I did want to get a figure from Mr. Budget here, as to what the interest subsidy cost will be. You know, the difference between tax-exempt and non-tax-exempt bom ids- Mr. HUGI-IES. The bill specifies that a formula for arriving at the subsidy, there are obviously a number of estimates necessary in terms of interst rates and the local share- Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Mr. I-IUGHES. Marked maturity and so on. The cost of the interest subsidy per se-based on premises that I will be glad to give you in writing-would be for contracts entered into in the 3 years, about $950 million total. Mr. CRAMER. That is about $1 billion that we also lose by using this gimmick, that we do not get construction for, is what I mean. Does not end up ill construction. Mr. HUGHES. We get the same amount of construction for somewhat less with the use of the interest subsidy than we do with the use of the tax exemption. Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the gentleman. I have some other ques- tions when you come back. -- PAGENO="0061" 53 NEED FOR RESEARCH Mr. SCHWENGEL. First I want to say to my former colleague that it is good to see you here again. I have read your book and 1 commend you for that. I have just one question, an observation, which deals with research. 1 am one who believes that there is a need for a lot more research. And I would like to ask this question: ~Would you consider amending this section so that we can have the benefit of experience the Highway Commission had had with the Bureau of Roads, with the State high- way commission, where they have the efforts of private enterprise, communities, of States, and the Federal Government, so that we can more truly reflect the changing needs for resolving the pollution problem? It seems to me that we can find some more economical answers and better answers to some of these problems. Also because of present growth, I am aware of the fact that the watershed, the water control on land, is not unrelated to this problem. In fact, the completion of the watershed program itself would make the resolution of the pollution problem that we are talking about here today much easier; is that right? Secretary UDALL. I would agree with your last point, Congressman. And I share your belief in the efficacy of good research programs. I would like to give you a piece of paper that lays out the magnitude and the nature of our research effort that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has going. We think it is a very good one. And a lot of that is joint research where we do have partners in it. I think that is some of the best money we spend, in trying to find better ways, and more efficient and cheaper ways, of getting the job done. Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is all, Mr. Chairman. I understand you will be back day after tomorrow, and I want to pursue this and some other matters that have occurred in this colloquy. Mr. MOEWEN. Could I have a clarification? When is Secretary TJdall coming back. Mr. HOWARD. I believe we have been informed sometime next week. I believe we are discussing either Wednesday or Thursday, that the Secretary will be able to return. Mr. MCEwEN. Of next week? Mr. HOWARD. Yes. Next week. And Mr. Moore will be available this afternoon. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa said he has read his book. I bought it, and I think that would qualify for inc an opportunity to ask some questions next week. TOTAL FEDERAL COST OF CONTRACT PROPOSAL Mr. CRAMER. May I just recap this, so that it is understood. As I understand it, this authorization of $2.275 billion Federal share in contracts means that by passing this bill and you agreeing to that limit, which you don't have to do, would mean that it would be matched by approximately $2.275 billion locally, perhaps a little more. But that would be a Federal guarantee, right? Mr. HtrGHES. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Contingent liability. So we are up to $4.5 billion. PAGENO="0062" 54 Then we have a litle bit of Federal share of the interest, which you say is not included in this authorization, so it is above it, of about $2.5 billion. But then you have an interest subsidy which is $900 million. It is not in this authorization, which is almost another billion dollars. So we are up to almost $8 billion that the Government is either guar- anteeing to the $2.2 billion and the balance we are absolutely liable for. So we are guaranteeing 2.2, and we are putting out a cash eventu- ally of $5.7 billion. Mr. HUGHEs. I think the only thing I would add to that summary- Mr. CRAMER. Do not add any more, please. Mr. HUGHES. I think it is rather important for the accuracy of the record, that again interest costs accrue no matter what, and secondly that in consideration of the interest subsidy, there would be a more than offsetting gain in tax receipts. Mr. CRAMER. The thing I am interested in, the figures in the bill are not very illuminating. They could be increased by guarantee or other- wise, by $5 billion. That is prety substantial. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. This committee is in recess until 2 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommitee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. WRIGHT. The committee will come to order. The Chair would like to express the appreciation of the committee for the patience of all of you who have come to testify, as we have been throughout the morning with Secretary TJdall and have not com- pleted the questions that the committee desired to ask of representa- tives of the Department of the Interior. We are going to follow this procedure this afternoon: Congressman William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, who sat through the morning ses- sion, will be heard first; and then as a courtesy to Mr. Loring F. Oem- ing, of the Michigan Water Resources Commission, who has a plane to catch, we will let him appear next. Following that Mr. Joe G. Moore and Mr. David Finnegan, of the Department of the Interior, will be asked to return iii order that we may pursue a bit further some of the questions the committee wanted to pose to the Interior Department. I know this creates some inconvenience to some of the witnesses who have come and anticipated appearing this morning, but the situ- ation cannot very well be helped. The committee does have the opportunity to inquire into some depth of the representatives of the administrative department which is rec- ommending the legislation and feels we must go ahead and pursue, so long as members of the committee desire to do so, that line of questions. I hope it is not working a hardship on anyone else. At this time we are pleased to have the very distinguished and very able Congressman from Wisconsin, Mr. William A. Steiger. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. WRIGHT. Now back on the record. The committee is very pleased to have you with us and will be most interested in your testimony. PAGENO="0063" 55 TATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. STEIGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- nittee. I will not take the time, because of the number of witnesses that you have, I would ask that the statement that I have be made a )art of the record. Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection, it will appear in the record at this Domt. (The prepared statement by Congressman William A. Steiger ~ollows:) LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM A. STEIGER Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today, HR 13312, is not complicated. [he purpose of this bill is to authorize a program of research and demonstration or the control of pollution in lakes. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior O enter into contracts with or make grants to, public or privae agencies or or- çanizations or individuals for the conduct of research and demonstration projects or the purpose of developing effective and practicable remedial measures, in- luding, without limitation, measures for the prevention of nutrient entry and he removal of existing nutrients and vegetation, to improve the quality of the vaters of the inland lakes of the United States. This bill is an outgrowth of my proposed Clean Lakes Act, HR 12759, submit- ed on August 31, 1967. Review of that bill by the Department of the Interior n a letter of September 26, 1967 resulted in the incorporation of their proposed hanges. The Department of the Interior supports HR 13312, and this bill is in Lgreement with the Administration's program. There is a serious threat to the more than 100,000 lakes in this country, a hreat not fully recognized until recently, but one which must be met now with sense of urgency and adequate resources, if we are to reverse the increasingly Leleterious effects of man's activities on our inland lakes. HR 13312 specifically dentifies the need for a greater focus on the problems of our lakes and the im- iediate need for many more demonstration projects and further research into lie pollution of our lakes. Much has been accomplished in the past with our esearch efforts, and it now is time to test these new methods with demonstra- ion projects. Efforts must be accelerated. Funds allotted in this bill are but a tart to what the total needs will be, and these needs should be further defined y the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the coming year, if ~e are to knowledgeably appropriate the necessary funds in future years. It is nperative that we assign a higher priority to work on the causes and effects of ike pollution. The Clean Lakes Act identifies this priority. The lakes are suffering mainly from what is commonly called eutrophication. ruch has been said about this phenomenon, especially in relation to the plight f one of our most valuable natural resources, the Great Lakes. There is little eed to take your time with detailed discussion of eutrophication except to briefly tate the problem. The process is not fully understood, hence the crying need for icreased research and demonstration projects that will put our findings into orkable solutions. It is presently agreed that the build-up of various chemicals, articularly nitrogen and phosphorus, increases the growth of aquatic plants, ainly algae. Nutrients promote excessive growth, just as fertilizers promote the ield of crops. Nutrients are fed into a lake via the atmosphere (rainfall), ground- -ater flow, surface runoff from surrounding lands, and man's activities, which in- .ude draining of marshes, cutting of forests, fertilizing his crops, and drainings om sewers and urban centers. While the build-up of nutrients is a slow process rider normal conditions, man has accelerated this process. And a lake that has ?come nutrient-rich is a lake that is extremely difficult to restore. The effect is to mit or to completely eliminate recreational use of the water and surrounding reas, and to impair the use of a lake for a water supply. There is a direct effect 1 tourism and the economic base of an area. The economic cost of correcting riously polluted water is fantastic. The cost to society is serious whether easured in terms of dollars or in benefits lost. Phosphorus is the nutrient that is presently considered the most accessible Lctor for control. The uncertainty as to the exact role played by other elements PAGENO="0064" 56 emphasizes the need for research if for no other reason than to provide the basics of the chemical interactions in the process of eutrophication. On February 10, 1908, I held an informal hearing in my district at Neenah, Wis- consin, to consider the Clean Lakes Act, H.R. 13312. The hearing drew consider- able support. I believe that a summary of the statements presented to that hear- ing can better demonstrate the understanding, concern, and the recognition of the need for action than pages of testimony that I might offer here. I therefore submit a summary of these statements for inclusion with my statement and ask that it be made a part of the Hearing Record. People in the Sixth District of Wisconsin, and across the nation, appreciate the problems of the lakes, and they want action. They realize that little is known about the ways of solving the problems, and they recognize the need for continued research and demonstration projects. The informal hearing produced many ex- amples of projects now considered by people in my area. I will cite a few. A consulting engineer from Milwaukee has completed a study of the removal of sediment and snuck from Little Muskego Lake. His study shows what can be done with present technology to restore a lake by dredging operations. Due to high costs and uncertainties, there is considerable need for demonstration grants to stimulate such projects so that more can be learned at greatly reduced costs. The Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh is expanding research facilities in the hope of including projects, funds permitting-to investigate the role of marshlands in lake dynamics; to measure primary and secondary pro- ductivity; to snake inventories of faunae and fiorae; to study lake currents; and to begin intensive interdisciplinary study of the aging process in Lake Winnebago. The University of Wisconsin, an institution that is well established as a research center in limnology, and which is undertaking numerous projects to uncover a solution to the problem of eutrophication, would gain renewed impetus from additional support for research. If a breakthrough is to be made we must strengthen the centers which are accomplishing important w-ork. A large investment is required when a university focuses the atten- tion of many different disciplines on the solution of a single problem. and it is in this area that the federal government can effectively lend support. Regional planning units, such as the Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and the Fox River Valley Council of Governments, are an aspect in translating proposed research and demonstration projects into actual programs of pollution control. Comprehensive zoning, which takes into account man's effect on his environment (e.g., the drainage into rivers and lakes) is but one of many tools available. Planning groups are the key to successful programs in controlling pollution. The total pollution program today is underfinanced. Although many have given support to the effort, the money committed to cleaning the nation's w-ater resources does not match the priority of the job. One example of this paradox is a dollar comparison of the different Research & Development allocations among the various governmental agencies. I beliece the will of the American people is a deep concern about dirty rivers and dying lakes, and this will should be translated into a greater allocation of dollars toward the pollution control effort. The following tabulations provide the proposed expenditures for FY 1900. EXPENDITURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR 1969 [In millions of dollarsi Department or agency Research Development Defense Aeronautics and Space Health, Education, and Welfare Atomic Energy Commission National Science Foundation $1,560 1,578 1,153 439 257 $6,62~ 2,91~ 8( 1 06~ Agriculture Interior 266 170 41 Commerce 56 2: Transportation Veterans' Administration 64 47 51 : Smithsonian Institution Housing and Urban Development Office of Economic Opportunity Justice Other 18 13 16 ~ 54 4 ~ 21 Total 5,695 10,911 PAGENO="0065" - 0~ Obligations of above agencies for water research [In millions of dollars] 1969 )epartment: estimate Agriculture $21 Defense 8 Health, Education, and Welfare 2 Interior 104 Atomic Energy Commission 3 National Science Foundation 2 Other 3 Total 143 N0TE.-The total Federal expenditure for research and development is $16,- D0,000,000 for 1969. Of this, $143 million is allocated for water `research, only ne portion of which is spent on water pollution research. In the recent publication, "Water Pollution Control 1969-73-The Federal osts," there is identified a total of only 58 million dollars for the research ffort in 1969. FWPCA has planned expenditures in 1968 for eutrophication mtrol amounting to 5.5 million dollars. `These figures are striking when coin- ared to amounts spent on other programs especially when we consider the ublicity given to the needs and the unknowns of pollution control technology. the small part of our spa'ce effort, the Surveyor Program, was to land only seven istrument packages of the moon, yet this cost 350 million dollars-more than Lie annual budget for our total pollution control efforts. If we are to make any sense `of the figures above, we must have a `break-down y program on how these funds are to be spent, so `that a reordering of priorities an be made. By merely looking at the magnitude of the figures for each agency, is obvious by any measurement that ititle emphasis is being put into pollution ontrol research. An arugment that present expenditures are the maximum pos- [ble at this time is hard to defend, `considering the greater costs `of waiting. The ill that I have proposed is not the total dollar answer, but in view of the Viet- am war it offers a reasonable alternative for fiscal year 1969. HR. 13312 gives the Secretary of the Interior authority to initiate research and emonstration programs of new or improved methods for preventing, removing, nd controlling pollution of the nation's lakes whether caused by natural or rtificial processes. It is essential that we make this beginning. Present knowl- dge of eutrophication and the techniques for lake reclamation is too limited, and ur financial resources are too limited, to begin on a full scale a program of ~deral involvement. But there must be federal support for research efforts across Lie nation to insure a more coordinated attack on the problem and to insure that Lie necessary level of effort is applied. This will mean that funds allotted for ~eatment facilities will go toward effective long-range plans for accomplishing Lie job, not to plants already out-of-date for t'oday's waste problems. If we are to identify the answers to algae blooms in eutrophic lakes, we must ave an interdisciplinary approach to pollution. The complexity of the condition iquires knowledge from diverse fields of research. Preventing America's lakes from dying appeals to all of us. It combines the Dnservation of economic values, public health, prudent husbanding of natural ~soruces, protection of wild life, restoration and preservation of natural beauty, Lie recapture of recreational and sport opportunities, and a decent regard for [eanliness. But what is the cost? The real cost is measured not only in physical icilities such as waste control plants, but in decreasing use of water, fewer )bs, and deferred production. It is not possible to restore all bodies of water to their virgin condition. Today Lie state of the art of cleaning up the nation's water is such that we have few Iternatives. Research must give us new alternatives. If the cost for clean water ver the next five years is 26 billion dollars, as estimated by the FWPCA, then is obvious-regardless of the qualification on this amount-we need a better ~chnological base from which to accomplish the job efficiently. There has been a breath of fresh air in government, with the recent adVent of )st/effectiveness techniques. The application of the PPB system to a tangible, nantitative assurance that projects are selected on their merits and pursued the most economical rate. Without this assurance, I would not recommend etion. The kind of program I envision is one that halts this irreversible degra- ation of our lakes in its tracks, that proceeds vigorously, promptly, comprehen- 94-376-68-------5 PAGENO="0066" 58 sively, to build a system of protection and restoration. I would hope that this program would be accompanied by a longer range research effort, to yield an understanding of these processes, so that we can in the future design our civiliza- tion and our technology in ways that do not harm our environment. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For the present, let us spend without delay enough to do the job. For the future, let us establish the facts and the policies, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Mr. STEIGEB. Along with the record of the informal hearings on the legislation in which I am most interested and on which I ask your favorable action, I-I.R. 13312, that were held in Neenah, Wis., on February 10, a copy of which has been submitted to the committee. Mr. WEIGHT. Without objection that document will appear as an official exhibit in the hearings of the commitee, and incorporated by reference. (Documents referred to may be found in the committee files.) Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, I will only urge that this committee take the same kind of action that the Senate took when it passed S. 2760. It included what has been known as the Clean Lakes Act as a portion of that overall iollution bill. The problem of our inland lakes is a critical problem. The need for additional research and demonstration projects I think is well recognized and very, very important to our whole total pollution effort. I think that the House would do exceedingly well, quite frankly, were it to adopt the bill in the form as I have introduced it, as have other members of the House, which was recommended by the Depart- ment of the Interior, which does slightly differ from that from which was used by the Senate. I appreciate the fact that this committee is holding these hearings and is as interested as it has been for SO long in this problem. Its leadership I think is just fantastic and most con'unendable. Mr. Chair- man, I appreciate the fact that you would allow me this opportunity to make this presentation. Mr. WRIGI-rr. Mr. Steiger, the committee appreciates your continu- ing interest in this matter. You always have exhibited creative and constructive leadership and we are grateful for you sharing these thoughts with us. Mr. S'rEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Loring F. Oeming is the executive secretary to the Michigan Water Resources Commission. Mr. Oeming, if you will move forward, the committee will be pleased to hear your testimony at this point. STATEMENT OP LORING P. OEMING, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, LANSING, MICH. Mr. ORMING. Thank you. May I ask that the complete statement that I have be entered into the record of this hearing, Mr. Chairman? I have provided copies to member of your staff. Mr. WEIGHT. Without objection, the statement will appear at this point in the record. PAGENO="0067" 59 (The prepared statement of Mr. Loring F. Oeming follows:) STATEMENT OF LORING F. OEMING, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES CoMMIssIoN, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, LANSING, MICH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Loring F. Oeming. Thank you for granting me the privilege of commenting upon legislation relat- ing to water pollution control upon which you are deliberating. I am appearing in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission of the Department of Conservation. This Commission has been delegated the authority by the Legislature to control the pollution of the waters of our State, both surface and underground, including Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes. The position I am expressing here has been approved by Governor George Romney. I am a graduate Sanitary Engineer and am licensed to practice professional engineering under Michigan Law. I have had 35 years experience in various capacities associated with the administration of the State's water resources and pollution control programs. Commencing in 1934, I have successively occupied the position of Hydraulic Engineer, Sanitary Engineer and Chief Engineer for the Commission. Since July 1, 1962, I have held the position of Executive Secretary. The comments I wish to offer are directed toward H.R. 15907, HR. 16044 and 5. 2760. We in Michigan very much appreciate your interest and efforts to control water pollution and the many ways in which you have sought to strengthen the partner- ship between the states and the Federal government in advancing our mutual objectives toward achieving clean water for the Nation. The control of water pollution holds very high priority among the objectives of Michigan's Executive and Legislative branches of Government. As you may know. Governor Romney has proposed that a $335 million bond issue to combat water pollution be placed on the November general election ballot. The Michigan Senate and House have acted in impressive accord and with near unanimity in approving the necessary supporting legislation. Gentlemen, I understand that you have before you several bills dealing with various aspects of water pollution control and the financing of sewage treatment works. Consequently, this statement will be general in nature, and limited to the areas of immediate interest to Michigan. GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION First-we endorse the aims of HR. 16044 as expressed in the preamble of that bill. They are constructive and impressive. The concept of providing grants to Issist in improving the performance of municipal sewage treatment plants holds :lefinite prospects of achieving measurable improvements in water quality, substantially in advance of the time when treatment plant modifications or idditions can be constructed to obtain the full degree of performance that may be required. The provisions of the bill would stimulate the upgrading of performance of wisting treatment plants with the resultant reduction in loading of the receiving waters with certain pollutants, notably solids, oxygen consuming substances and phosphates. An example of how the provisions of this bill could have an immediate and Deneficial effect on water quality is found at Grayling, Michigan, a resort com- nunity of less than 2,000 permanent residents. The existing treatment facility is inadequate to provide the necessary degree of protection for the famous trout ~vaters of the Au Sable River, particularly during the seasonal influx of tourists md of personnel at a nearby National Guard encampment. Trial full scale testing at Grayling this past year disclosed that even with the inadequate plant, substantial removal of oxygen demand, solids and phosphates could be achieved simply by the addition of certain chemicals. Phosphates alone were reduced some ~0% by such addition. Thus, during the period of time it will take to design, irrange the financing and construct the needed plant improvements, a substantial neasure of enhancement in quality of the river can be achieved, although at a iistinct increase in operating costs. Assistance in paying these costs would be mxtremely helpful. PAGENO="0068" 60 The next proposed legislation on which we would like to comment is S. 2700. The pollution control needs which are highlighted by this bill's proposed amend- melts to the Water Pollution Control Act are serious problems whose solution definitely requires federal assistance. LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL The needs for improved techniques for controlling lake pollution in a state like Michigan, with its numerous inland lakes, are urgent. We endorse the concept of research and demonstrations which would lead to the restoration of these lakes to their full degree of usefulness. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL The need for a strengthening and tightening of the legal mechanism for control of oil pollution is also most urgent. The number of incidents of oil pollution from commercial vessels reported to the Water Resources Commission has increased markedly in recent years. These incidents have ranged from the most serious- the foundering of an oil barge in Lower Lake Michigan, with attendant massive fouling of more than 200 miles of beaches during the next summer-to the nearly continuous summertime complaints of swimmers smeared by tar-like fuel oils on our Great Lakes beaches. The growing rate of complaints has paralleled 1;he increase in number of oil- fueled vessels on the Great Lakes. These have been vessels engaged in lake com- merce as well as thoses in ocean commerce. Nearly all vessels inbound into the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway are oil-fueled. It is apparent that the amendment of the Oil Pollution Act by the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, P.L. 89-753, has been inadequate to cope with the prob- lems we are experiencing. There are two aspects of the proposed amendments which are essential for adequate oil pollution control: 1. Strengthening the enforcement provisions by removing the words `grossly negligent" and `willful" in the definition of the word "discharge"; 2. Creating a revolving fund to finance clean-up measures under critical conditions. As a pollution control administrator with some 35 years of experience I can personally testify that the requirement of proving "negligence" or "willfulness" provides almost a guarantee of escape from the penalties of a polluting act. Much of the fouling of eastern Lake Michigan's shoreline from the previously men- tioned oil-barge foundering could have been prevented had there been provisions and funding for emergency clean-up. We do not agree with the expansion of Federal authority in one area of oil pollution control, that of shore installations. Vessels engaged in interstate com- merce should and must be under Federal authority, but control of oil pollution from shore installations should remain the primary responsibility of the state. To separate oil pollution control within a state on the basis of whether the instal- lation is adjacent to navigable or non-navigable water can only lead to jurisdic- tional confusion and fractionating of effort. The Michigan interstate water quality standards require that there be "no visible film of oil, gasoline or related materials, and no globules of grease" resulting from a discharge into Michigan waters. The Secretary of the Interior has approved that portion of the standards containing this provision. Michigan statutes are fully adequate to enforce these standards and it is certainly the intent of the Water Resources Commission and its member agencies to do so. We are encouraged by the bill's authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreement with States in the enforcement of the Act. Such agree- ments could greatly strengthen the Act's enforcement provisions. POLLUTION BY COMMERCIAL VESSELS One aspect of pollution with which we are experiencing increasing problems is the indiscriminate overboard disposal of garbage, dunnage, and trash from vessels engaged in commercial navigation. The detrimental effects of these practices grow increasingly worse with the use of plastics and other indestructible con- tainers. Public and private costs in the removal of this debris from Great Lakes' beaches is becoming very substantial. The aesthetic damage is even more serious. PAGENO="0069" 61 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHOD FOR WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION Of the most concern to Michigan among the bills which are now before your is HR. 15907. The impact of this bill not only holds little prospect for advancement of pollu- tion control in Michigan, but gives every indication of seriously impairing our purpose and progress. Lieutenant Governor Milliken presented the State's position on the counter- part bill S. 3206 before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on April 10. Copy of Lieutenant Governor Milliken's statement is attached to my statement. Briefly, our position as expressed by him, is as follows: Our goal, by 1980, is to effectuate full pollution control in Michigan, with an adequate and dynamic program to maintain it. This will involve constructing 210 new municipal treatment plants, improving 126 existing sewage treatment plants, and building collecting sewers for an additional 3.5 million people. Costs of this program are estimated at $1.2 billion, of which $568 million is for treatment and interceptor facilities and $641 million is for lateral sewers and storm water control. The payment formula for the $568 million set forth in the 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act (P.L. 89-753) would call for Federal assumption of 50% or $284 million, and State and Local shares of 25% or $142 million each. To provide for full accomplishment of these urgently needed improvements~ without the crippling injury of protracted scheduling, Michigan has embarked on a bond issue proposal that will finance full-scale attack along the entire pollu- tion front. To be on the safe side, our bonding proposal assumes that the Congress may not appropriate enough to provide the $284 million for Michigan but may be expected to appropriate half that amount. This means the State will be prefunding half of the Federal share by picking it up in our bonding issue in the hope that the Federal money will come through eventually. Put differently, this means the State is prepared to initially assume one-half of the cost. It was only in November of 1966 that the Federal Water Pollution Control Law (P.L. 84-660) was amended to provide for State or Local prefinancing of the Federal share of eligible projects, such prefinancing to be repaid from Fed- eral appropriations in future years. This provision became the foundation upon which the States, through bond sales, could launch full-scale programs for prompt and total abatement of exist- ing pollution problems. Now-just 18 months later-HR. 15907 would remove this provision for all projects started after July 1, 1968. With prefinancing no longer provided for, pollution control programs would revert to either: 1. Gearing construction each year to the Federal appropriation for that year, or- 2. State and local assumption of the full costs each year over and above that which is paid by the Federal grant in that year. The new method of Federal participation under the amendments proposed in H.R. 15907 to pay principal and interest on the Federal share of project costs on a contractural basis, would exclude 229 of 336 needed plants or interceptor projects in Michigan from assistance. These projects which are excluded would serve communities neither in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas nor in areas with populations of more than 125,000 as required in HR. 15907. It is precisely these smaller communities that find it extremely difficult to finance pollution control works. It is these 229 projects which, under H.R. 15907, would find Federal aid solely in the annual appropriation for grants-a prospective mere $8 million for next year. If pollution control is to be achieved within the time that the situation's urgency demands, such aid must either be forthcoming now or there must be some dependable assurance from Congress that it will be forthcoming in the near future under a stabilized policy. Such assurance is clearly implied in the Clean Water Restoration Act. Besides limiting the new methods of financing to projects for Standard Metro- politan Statistical Areas and areas over 125,000 in population, the bill contains other highly restrictive provisions which raise serious questions as to its useful- ness in combating water pollution; particularly the requirements that local units PAGENO="0070" 62 of government must finance treatment works from service charges, and that their bonds be taxable. Michigan has moved ahead to plan and prepare a sound program of pollution control and abatement. It is imperative that the States be able to rely upon commitments made by the Federal government without repeated changing of the ground rules. The construction grant program as defined in the existing P.L. 84-060 was well conceived and should be permitted to remain in effect. If the States can depend upon the Congressional pledges therein contained, they can at long last lift themselves from the morass of decades-old inaction and build a water con- servation program worthy of our nationwide interests in this vital resource. If they cannot, and are prevented from maximizing the use of their own re- sources, the way ahead is dark indeed. STATEMENT OF LT. Gov. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN OF MICHIGAN Senator Muskie-I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today be- fore the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to testify on S.B. 3200 which would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. As you know, the control of water pollution in our State is very high on our priority list. We appreciate the efforts of the Secretary of the Interior and others to strengthen the partnership between the states and the Federal government in advancing our mutual objectives toward achieving clean water for the Nation. Pollution control is imperatively important to Michigan because of the great water-resource base on which our economy and way of life is founded. These invaluable resources redound not only to the benefit of Michigan but to the nation as a whole. Just as we have much to gain if our pollution control programs are effective; we have a great deal indeed to lose if they fail. Water pollution has reached crisis proportions through years of neglect. Some of our inland waters are badly impaired. Lake Erie has been gravely injured; Lake Michigan's renowned excellence is in jeopardy. But the public has at last become keenly alive to the fact that pollution is immensely costly in terms of health hazard, property damage, increased cost of drinking water, destruction of recreational areas, curtailment of sports and commercial fishing and reduced industrial potential. This is not to imply that we in Michigan have not been making important progress over the past few years, because we have been making progress on a broad front, including legislation, enforcements, and construction of sewage treatment facilities. For example: A 1065 State law overhauled our basic pollution control statute and an alert Legislature increased enforcement budgets, enabling the State Water Resources Commission to sharply tighten its rein on potential pollution problems. The most massive water clean-up campaign. in Michigan's history began in June, 1965, following completion of a 30 month Federal-State study of pollu- tion in the Detroit River, Michigan waters of Lake Erie, and their tributaries. In 1966, voluntary commitments to restrict discharges were obtained from all 36 waste contributing entities in the Detroit River-Lake Erie area. These com- mitments involve rigid time schedules ending in 1970 and a price tag of 200 or 300 million dollars. In June of 1967, the Water Resources Commission adopted water quality standards for Michigan interstate waters, along with a plan for their full im- plementation and enforcement. By the end of 1968, a.fl of Michigan's inland lakes and streams and those waters shared by other states will be protected by standards of quality designed to maximize their usefulness for all citizens. Our goal, by 1980, is to effectuate full pollution control in Michigan, with an adequate and dynamic program to maintain it. This will involve constructing 210 new municipal treatment plants, improving 120 existing sewage treatment plants, and building sewers for an additional 3.5 million people. Costs of this program are estimated at $1.2 billion, of which $568 million is for treatment and interceptor facilities and $641 million is for lateral sewers and storm water control. If we ore to work effeotively together, the States must know what share of the huge total costs involved will be borne by the Federal government, and you must know what share of non-Federal costs will be borne by the State. PAGENO="0071" 63 The payment formula for the $568 million set forth in the 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act would call for Federal assumption of 50 percent or $284 million, and State and local shares of 25 percent or $142 million each. To provide for full accomplishment of these urgently needed improvements, without the crippling injury of protracted scheduling, Michigan has embarked on a bond issue proposal that will finance full scale attack along the entire pollution front. To be on the safe side, our bonding proposal assumes that the Congress may not appropriate enough to provide the $284 million for Michigan but may be ex- pected to appropriate half that amount. This means the state will be prefunding half of the Federal share by picking it up in our bonding issue in the hope that the Federal money will come through eventually. Put differently, this means the state is prepared to initially assume one-half of the cost. Thus a state bond issue of $285 million, plus Federal financing, would pay 75 percent of the cost of building new disposal plants and interceptors, and improv- ing existing plants to provide secondary treatment facilities for all municipal- ities. This would leave local units of government the obligation of financing the remaining 25 percent of such costs, plus paying 100 percent of the costs of lateral sewers. Yesterday, the Michigan State Senate unanimously approved placing on the November general election ballot a bond issue proposal for not only the $285 million for plants and interceptors, but for an additional $50 million for aid in sewer construction. It was only in November of 1966 `that the Federal Water Pollution Control Law (P.L. 84-660) was amended to provide for State or local prefinancing of the Federal share of eligible projects, such prefinancing to be repaid from Fed- eral appropriations in future years. This provision became the basis on which the States, through bond sales, could launch full-scale programs for prompt and total abatement of existing pollution problems. Now-just 18 months later-S. 3206 would remove this provision for all pro- jects started after July 1, 1968. With prefinancing no longer provided for, pollution control programs would revert to either- 1. Gearing construction each year to the Federal appropriation for that year, or 2. State and local assumption of the full costs each year over and above that which i's paid by the Federal grant in that year. The new method of Federal participation proposed in S. 3206 to pay principal and interest on the Federal share of project costs on a contract basis would exclude 229 of 336 needed plants or interceptor projects in Michigan from as- sistance under the proposed amendments. These projects all would serve com- munities neither in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas nor areas with populations of more than 125,000 as required in S. 3206. It is precisely these smaller communities that find it extremely difficult to finance pollution control works. It is these 229 projects which, under S. 3206, would find Federal aid solely in the annual appropriation for grants-a prospective mere $8 million for next year. If pollution control is to be achieved within the time that the situation's urgency demands, such aid must either be forthcoming now or there must be some dependable assurance from Congress that it will be forthcoming in the near future under a stabilized policy. Such assurance is clearly implied in the Clean Water Restoration Act. Besides limiting the new methods of financing to projects for S.M.S.A. and areas over 125,000 in population the bill contains other highly restrictive pro- visions which raise serious questions as to its usefulness in combating water pollution; particularly the requirements that local units of government must finance treatment works from service charges, and that their bonds be taxable. Local governments, because of their existing financing commitments or size limitations, would be unable to finance construction of treatment works solely from service charges; they must in fact use a combination of several methods of financing available. Even some of our major communities report an insuf- ficient economic base to finance from servfce charges. Some 165 smaller coin- munities in Michigan are without either a collection system or treatment works. Under Michigan statute, villages are limited to revenue bonds or general obliga- tion bonds in financing treatment or collections systems. As an example of cost PAGENO="0072" 64 of a complete system under current conditions, our village of Vermontvilb (population 768) was required ~o undertake the following financing-an $11 month service charge, a 5 mill tax increase and a $175 connection fee. The requirement of taxable bonds would necessitate substantial revision o state statutes dealing with financing of bond issues. Taxable bond rates woul certainly be far above the present statutory interest limit on revenue bonds Oakland County, one of Michigan's largest metropolitan counties, sold $17 mil lion worth of non-taxable bonds on April 4, 1968, at a rate of 4.93% and thi~ bond issue was backed by the full faith and credit of the county. A small corn munity near Lansing was unable to sell bonds at 6% interest rate. It is omu understanding from our finance people that many of the municipal bonds are now purchased by individuals in the 50% income tax bracket. It would require ar 8% taxable interest rate to equal a 4% non-taxable rate at this income level. In short, the impact of S. 3206 not only holds little prospect for advancemeni of pollution control in Michigan but it gives every indication of seriously im pairing our purpose and progress. In its abandonment of the prefinancing pro vision of P.L. 84-660, the bill negates in large measure the Michigan State bond ing proposal, whose prospects for adoption are so clearly established by our Stat( Senate's endorsement. The departure from the stepped-up grant program pro vided by the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, contemplated in Secretar3 Udall's letter of March 8, 1968, to the Speaker of the House, suggests an abandon. ment of less than two year old commitments by the Congress. Michigan has moved ahead to plan and prepare a sound program of pollutior control and abatement. It is imperative that states like Michigan be able tc rely upon commitments made by the Federal government without repeated changing of the ground rules. P.L. 84-660 as it stands is a good law. If the States can depend upon thE Congressional pledges therein contained, they can at long last lift themse1ve~ from the morass of decades-old inaction and build a water conservation pro gram worthy of our nation-wide interests in this vital resource. If they can not, and are prevented from maximizing the use of their own resources, the wn~ ahead is dark indeed. Mr. OEMING. Thank you for granting me the privilege of comment- ing upon legislation relating to water pollution control upon which you are deliberating. I am appearing in my capacity as executive sec- retary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission of the Depart- ment of Conservative. This commission has been delegated the author- ity by the legislature to control the pollution of the waters of our State, both surface and underground, including Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes. The position I am expressing here has been approved by Gov. George Romney. I am a graduate sanitary engineer and am licensed to practice pro- fessional engineering under Michigan law. I have had 35 years ex- perience in various capacities associated with the administration o~ the State's water resources and pollution control programs. Com- mencing in 1934, I have successively occupied the position of hy. draulic engineer, sanitary engineer, and chief engineer for the com- mission. Since July 1, 1962, I have held the position of executive secretary. The comments I wish to offer are directed toward H.R. 15907, H.R. 16044, and S. 2760. We in Michigan very much appreciate your interest and efforts to control water pollution and the many ways in which you have sought to strengthen the partnership between the States and the Fed- era.l Government in advancing our mutual objectives toward achiev- ing clean water for the Nation. . The control of water pollution holds very high priority among the objectives of Michigan's executive and legislative branches of govern- PAGENO="0073" 65 ment. As you may know, Governor Romney has proposed that a $335 million bond issue to combat water pollution be placed on the Novem- ber general election ballot. The Michigan Senate and 1-louse have acted in impressive accord and with near unanimity in approving the necessary supporting legislation. Gentlemen, I understand that you have before you several bills dealing with various aspects of water pollution control and the financ- ing of sewage treatment works. Consequently, this statement will be general in nature, and limited to the areas of immediate interest to Michigan. GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION First, we endorse the aims of H.R. 16044 as expressed in the pre- amble of that bill. They are constructive and impressive. The con- cept of providing grants to assist in improving the performance of municipal sewage treatment plants holds definite prospects of achiev- ing measurable improvements in water quality, substantially in ad- vance of the time when treatment plant modifications or additions can be constructed to obtain the full degree of performance that may be required. The provisions of the bill would stimulate the upgrading of per- formance of existing treatment plants with the resultant reduction in loading of the receiving waters with certain pollutants, notably solids, oxygen-consuming substances, and phosphates. An example of how the provisions of this bill could have an imme- diate and beneficial effect on water quality is found at Grayling, Mich., a resort community of less than 2,000 permanent residents. The exist- ing treatment facility is inadequate to provide the necessary degree of protection for the famous trout waters of the Au Sable River, particularly during the seasonal influx of tourists and of personnel at a hearby National Guard encampment. Trial full-scale testing at Grayling this past year disclosed that even with the inadequate plant, substantial removal of oxygen demand, solids, and phosphates could be achieved simply by the addition of certain chemicals. Phosphates alone were reduced some 70 percent by such addition. Thus during the period of time it will take to design, arrange the financing and construct the needed plant improvements, a substantial measure of enhancement in quality of the river can be achieved, although at a distinct increase in operating costs. Assistance in paying these costs would be extremely helpful. The next proposed legislation on which we would like to comment is S. 2760. The pollution control needs which are highlighted by this bill's proposed amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act are serious problems whose solution definitely requires Federal assistance. LAKE POLLTJTEON CONTROL The needs for improved techniques for controlling lake pollution in ~ State like Michigan, with its numerous inland lakes, are urgent. We ~ndorse the concept of research and demonstrations which would lead to the restoration of these lakes to their full degree of usefulness. PAGENO="0074" 66 OIL POLLTJTION CONTROL The need for a strengthening and tightening of the legal mechanism for control of oil pollution is also most urgent. The number of inci- dents of oil pollution from commercial vessels reported to the water resources commission has increased markedly in recent years. These incidents have ranged from the most serious-the foundering of an oil barge in lower Lake Michigan, with attendant massive fouling of more than 200 miles of beaches during the next summer-to the nearly continuous summertime complaints of swimmers smeared by tar-like fuel oils on our Great Lakes beaches. The growing rate of complaints has paralleled the increase in num- ber of oil-fueled vessels on the Great Lakes. These have been vessels en- gaged in lake commerce as well as those in ocean commerce. Nearly all vessels inbound into the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway are oil-fueled. It is apparent that the amendment of the Oil Pollution Act by the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, Public Law 89-753, has been inadequate to cope with the problems we are experiencing. There are two aspects of the proposed amendments which are essen- tial for adequate oil pollution control: One, strengthening the enforce- ment provisions by removing the words "grossly negligent" and "will- ful" in the definition of the word "discharge; and, two, creating a re- volving fund to finance clean-up measures under critical conditions. A a pollution control administrator with some 35 years of experience I can personally testify that the requirement of proving "negligence" or "willfulness" provides almost a guarantee of escape from the penal- ties of a polluting act. Much of the fouling of eastern Lake Michigan's shoreline from the previously mentioned oil barge foundering could have been prevented had there been provisions and funding for emer- gency cleanup. We do not agree with the expansion of Federal authority in one area of oil pollution control, that of shore installations. Vessels en- gaged in interstate commerce should and must be under Federal authority, but control of oil pollution from shore installations should remain the primary responsibility of the State. To separate oil pol- lution control within a State on the basis of whether the installation is adjacent to navigable or nonnavigable water can only lead to juris- dictional confusion and fractionating of effort. The Michigan inter- state water quality standards require that there be "no visible film of oil, gasoline or related materials, and no globules of grease" resulting from a discharge into Michigan waters. `The Secretary of the Interior has approved that portion of the standards containing this provision. Michigan statutes are fully adequate to enforce these standards and it is certainly the intent of the water resources commission and its mem- ber agencies to do so. Mr. WRIGI-IT. Mr. Oeming, at this point may I ask this: Do you feel that the standards that the State of Michigan has created are fully a.deciuate. within the St-ate of Michigan? And certainly that inchicles the installations that mieht be on. shores. I-las your set of standards been ap~rovecl by the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis- tration? PAGENO="0075" 67 Mr. OEi~nNG. Not entirely, sir. The last word I had, there were some conditions on the standards yet, but not this portion of the standards, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WRIGHT. This portion of the standards you think has been approved? Mr. OEMING. There has been no question raised about this portion of the standards. Mr. WRIGHT. You anticipate no major difficulty in arriving at an agreement with the Water Pollution Control Administration? Mr. OEMING. No, not at this point in time. Mr. WRIGIIT. The reason I asked is because this point you have raised is one a number of people have been raising, that it would be somewhat inconsistent for the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration to require the States to set certain standards, and then the States, with certain standards, and then for the Federal agency to superimpose its own jurisdiction over a portion of those installa- tions lying within the States and falling under the standards of the States that they have approved. You declare you think it would result in jurisdictional confusion and fractionating of effort. Can you see any reason why shore installations should be treated differently under the law than nonnavigable rivers? Mr. OEMING. They are covered now under the present act and water quality standards the States have adopted. Particularly in Michigan's case, these standards apply to discharges into interstate waters which are navigable waters, like the Great Lakes. Now, the implementation plan has been submitted and approved so far as I know, and so I see no reason for another layer of govern- ment to be imposed on this particular area of activity. Mr. WRIGnT. I see. Mr. Oeming, the Chair is going to find it neces- sary to recess briefly in order that I may vote on the bill that is cur- rently being voted on in the House. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. WRIGI-IT. Very good timing. You may continue your statement. (At this point Mr. McCarthy assumed the Chair.) Mr. OEMING. We are encouraged by the bill's authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreement with . States in the enforcement of the act. Such agreements could greatly strengthen the act's enforcement provisions. POLLUTION BY COMMERCIAL VESSELS One aspect of pollution with which we are experiencing increas- ing problems is the indiscriminate overboard disposal of garbage, dunnage, and trash from vessels engaged in commercial navigation. The detrimental effects of these proctices grow increasingly worse with the use of plastics and other indestructible containers. Public and private costs in the removal of this debris from Great Lakes' beaches is becoming very substantial. The esthetic damage is even more serious. PAGENO="0076" 08 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHOD FOR WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION Of the most concern to Michigan among the bills which are now before you, is H.R. 15907. The impact of this bill not only holds little prospect for advance- ment of pollution control in Michigan, but gives every indication of seriously impairing our purpose and progress. Lieutenant Governor Milliken presented the State's position on the counterpart bill, 5. 3206, before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on April 10. Copy of Lieutenant Governor Milliken's statement is attached to my statement (see p. 62). Briefly, our position as expressed by him is as follows: Our goal, by 1980, is to effectuate full pollution control in Michigan, with an adequate and dynamic program to maintain it. This will involve constructing 210 new municipal treatment plants, improving 126 existing sewage treatment plants, and building collecting sewers for an additional 3.5 million people. Costs of this program are estimated at $1.2 billion, of which $568 million is for treatment and interceptor facilities and $641 million is for lateral sewers and storm water control. The payment formula for the $568 million set forth in the 1966 Clean `Water Restoration Act-Public Law 89-753-would call for Federal assumption of 50 percent or $284 million, and State and local shares of 25 percent or $142 million each. To provide for full accomplishment of these urgently needed im- provements, without the crippling injury of protracted scheduling, Michigan has embarked on a bond issue proposal that will finance full-scale attack along the entire pollution front. To be on the safe side, our bonding proposal assumes that the Con- gress may not appropriate enough to provide the $284 million for Michigan but may be expected to appropriate half that amount. This means the State will be prefunding half of the Federal share by picking it up in our bonding issue in the hope that the Federal money will come through eventually. Put differently, this means the State is prepared to initially assume one-half of the cost. It was only in November of 1966 that the Federal Water Pollution Control Law-Public Law 84-660-was amended to provide for State or local prefinan'cing of the Federal share of eligible projects, such prefinancing to be repaid from Federal appropriations in future years. This provision became the foundation upon which the States, through bond sales, could launch full-scale programs for prompt and total abatement of existing pollution problems. Now-just 18 months later-IiT.R. 15907 would remove this provi- sion for all projects starting after July 1, 1968. `With prefinancing no longer provided for, pollution control pro- grams would revert to either: One, gearing construction each year to the Federal appropriation for that year, or, two, State and local as- sumption of the full costs each year over and above that which is paid by the Federal grant in that year. The new method of Federal participation under the amendments proposed in IE[.R. 15907 to pay principal and interest on the Federal PAGENO="0077" 69 share of project costs on a contractual basis, would exclude 229 of 336 needed plants or interceptor projects in Michigan from assistance. These projects which are excluded would serve communities neither in standard metropolitan statistical areas nor in areas with popula- tions of more than 125,000 as required in H.R. 15907. It is precisely these smaller communities that find it extremely difficult to finance pollution control works. Parenthetically, here, Mr. Chairman and members, in Michigan we have 10 SMSA areas. These encompass some 14 counties out of a total of 83 counties in Michigan. It is these 229 projects which, under H.R. 15907, would find Federal aid solely in the annual appropriation for grants-a prospective mere $8 million for next year. If pollution control is to be achieved within the time that the situation's urgency demands, such aid must be either forthcoming now or there must be some dependable assurance from Congress that it will be forthcoming in the near future under a sta- bilized policy. Such assurance is clearly implied in the Clean Water Restoration Act. Besides limiting the new methods of financing to projects for stand- ard metropolitan statistical areas and areas over 125,000 in population, the bill contains other highly restrictive provisions which raise serious questions as to its usefulness in combating water pollution; particu- larly the requirements that local units of government must finance treatment works from service charges, and that their bonds be taxable. Michigan has moved ahead to plan and prepare a sound program of pollution control and abatement. It is imperative that the States be able to rely upon commitments made by the Federal government with- out repeated changing of the groundrules. The construction grant program as defined in the existing Public Law 84-660 was well conceived and should be permitted to remain in effect. If the States can depend upon the congressional pledges therein contained, they can at long last lift themselves from the morass of decades-old inaction and build a water conservation program worthy of our nationwide interests in this vital resource. If they cannot, and are prevented from maximizing the use of their own resources, the way ahead is dark indeed. CUTOFF OF PREFINANCING PROVISION Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Oeming. I would like to ask you to expand your statement on pages 6 and 7. Now, you say that this prefinancing provision was the foundation on which States like Michigan could launch fuliscale programs for prompt and total abatement of existing pollution problems; that now, 18 months later, H.R. 15907 would remove this provision for all projects started after next July 1. Now, you say here, down in the last paragraph: If we were to re- move that prefinancing provision, this would exclude 229 of 336 needed plants. I wonder if you would enlarge on that? Why would this happen? Mr. OEMING. Well, taking the bill as a whole, 229 of our projects would not fall within the standard metropolitan statistical areas, so they would not qualify for this bond funding proposal. PAGENO="0078" 70 Now, if they do not qualify here, then they must go back to the original grant program, which is going to be far deficient to meet the needs within a reasonable period of time. Mr. MCCARTHY. Right. Mr. OEMING. And without removing the J)rovision for remunerat- ing-that is, the advancing of funds by municipalities-if that is tahen out, I just question where we are ending up here. We would be removing the incentive to go ahead here. Mr. MCCARTHY. You have a sympathetic listener in me. I am from New York. Now, what would you think of something that I broached with the Secretary this morning of keeping the prefin.ancing provision in along with embarking on the new bond procedure and giving States an option? Mr. OEMING. I think this holds some definite promise, provided that the authorization in the present bill still remains for the grants. And I am not saying that we expect any appropriations be made here up to the full amounts of the authorization within the 4 years; I am say- ing that if Congress can't do this, they can attenuate it, fine, but this provides a foundation upon which the States can set up a funding program that will make certain that pollution control proceeds as promptly and expeditiously as possible. Mr. MCCARTI-IY. Do you know how many States have the programs underway that are based on the prefinancing provisions? Mr. OE~IING. Well, I can name some of them, sir. I am pretty sure Oregon has a bond issue set up, with Wisconsin doing some prefinanc- ing out of current revenues, as is Indiana; Illinois is proposing a bond issue this fall also, predicated on the same assumptions here. I believe Pennsylvania has a bond issue and I think Ohio is working on one. Now, those are the ones I am directly-- Mr. MCCARTHY. New York? Mr. OEMING. I know New York has been in the business a couple of years. Mr. MCCARTHY. Michigan? Maine? Mr. OE~rING. Maine. Yes. I think that is correct. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think you have hit on the point that at least I think is important, and that is that the States you have enumerated are those which have pioneered, which are moving ahead and who are using State revenues to attack th1s problem. They went ahead on the assurance that the prefinancing provision was in the law. Now 18 months later they propose to change the ground rules and, in effect, penalize those who have moved out ahead. Mr. OEMING. I do not say necessarily penalize, but disrupt their pro- grams that are now just beginning to get underway. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think, for the record, we might just cite the following letter received from the town of Orono, Maine, which is where the University of Maine is located, addressed to the chairman of the committee, the Honorable Representative Biatnik, where is states here: The Legislature of the State of Maine took a giant step in the last Speci~i"l Session to enact a Prefunding Act to assist communities in going ahead with their already prepared plans for pollution abatement. One of the conditions of this State Act is that the Federal government, when funds are available, reim- PAGENO="0079" 71 burse the State the amount the Federal share, which the State had agreed to pay in advance as part of its prefunding. I'm very concerned that the proposed Act before Congress may impair the State's position in funding local construction by months if not years. In that much confusion has resulted in the terms of the proposed act, I would appreciate answers to these questions as soon as possible. Signed "Forest M. French, Orono Town Manager." ~ to that list that we went through, would you like to add ew Hampshire? Mr. OEMING. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. MCCARTHY. And Vermont. I believe you mentioned Pennsyl- vania. Mr. OEMING. Yes, I did. Mr. MCCARTHY. Massachusetts? Mr. OEMING. Massachusetts; yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. So I think we enumerated about a dozen States there that have gone ahead with the prefinancing provison as the foundation. Mr. OEMING. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Denney? PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION REQUIREMENT OF H.R. 15907 Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Oeming, in your testimony, it looks like you made a careful study of H.iR. 15907. On page 8, subsection (g), (1), it says: The design and operation plan for treatment work shall be adequate in the judgement of the Secretary to insure the maximum efficiency in operation. Do you have any idea what that means? Mr. OEMING. Yes. Well, I have an idea what it means and if I interpret this correctly, I think it could be very well imposing another period of delay in this whole process of getting pollution abated. Here we have a situation, sir, where the States have gone sled length to adopt water quality standards and plans of implementation, and if those are to meet anything, the States must provide the kind of treat- ment, require the kind of treatment of the municipalities to meet those standards. Now, I am concerned about the necessity for another set of approvals on these designs and operations. Now, it is true that under the Federal programs presently, the designs of the treatment facilities, the plans go to the Secretary of the Interior after they have been reviewed by the States and certified by the States as being adequate. . We have had no trouble with this, but now we get into this oper- atin~ problem here and I just wonder how the Federal Government can ~get into the problem of operating a facility of a town of 2,000 or 5,000 people, or in the metropolitan statistical area. There are some small towns. PROSPECT OF INOREASING FEDERAL CONTROL SEEN IN PRESENT PROPOSALS Mr. PENNEY. This morning I asked the Secretary a question, it looks to me like the thrust of this law is to put more and more control at the Washington level, and yet the basic concept of the act was to preserve PAGENO="0080" 72 to the States the right to determine the pollution of the waters that come through their State. Now, do you feel that by the different provisions of this law we are now considering, that it is going to delay the abatement of pollution and also put more Federal control in Washington? Mr. OEMING. Well, first of all, I feel that this could be considered a breach of the policy statement in the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act, where it states that the primary responsibility rests with the States. Well, there is not much primary responsibility left when we take the design and the operation of the treatment facilities out of the States. I do not know what they are going to be doing. Mr. DENNEY. Well, for example, provisions in this bill require in effect that any industrial, public or private development which would constitute a new source of pollution or increased pollution to high- quality water must contain a program designed to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology. I can see where you could spend several months arguing with the Secretary as to whether or not you have reached the highest and best degree of technology. Can you see the same problem? Mr. OEMING. Well, I think certainly it is not inconceivable that this can happen. Mr. PENNEY. Of course, our purpose is to try and abate this pollution. Mr. OEMING. Promptly. Mr. PENNEY. I believe that is all I have. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Penney. Thank you, Mr. Oeming, for a very important contribution. Mr. OEMING. Thank you, sir. (At this point Mr. Wright resumed the Chair.) Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Joe G. Moore, Jr., and Mr. David Finnegan, if you would return, we would like to ask a few more questions relating the position of the Department of the Interior. The committee appreciates your patience in being with us this morn- ing and returning again this afternoon. The committee has a number of questions that were not able to be answered because of the time in- volved this morning concerning the testimony of Secretary Udall. INTERIOR'S RELATIONSHIP WITH TIlE STATES IN THE STANDARDS-SETTING PROCESS First of all, how would you characterize the relationship between the Department and the various States with respect to the firming up and finalizing of an acceptable standard? Do you think the relationship is amicable and friendly, or do you think you have had major difficulties? PAGENO="0081" 73 STATEMENTS OF HON. 10E G. MOORE, FR., COMMISSIONER FOR THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, DL- PARTMEI(T OF THE INTERIOR, AND DAVID FINNEGAN, ASSIST- ANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR- Resumed Mr. Moom~. Mr. Chairman, I will have to comment that by virtue of my recent prior association, there have been, obviously, discussions with the States with regard to the water quality standards. The Secre- tary indicated this morning that some 31 of these sets of States standards have been approved by the Secretary, some with exceptions. There are presently some seven State standards under detailed and close review at the highest level within the Department of the Interior. The standards of. the remaining States, roughly some 12 States and three territorial standards, represent, as you might expect, those in which the areas of disagreement have beefi wider than in some that have already been approved. However, it is, I think, very probable, with the exception of the resolution of the addition of what was referred to this morning as the nondegradation statement, that the majority of the States standards can be approved within a reasonable period of time. Now, I exclude the question of noiìdegradation statement, because this issue was resolved by the Secretary late in January and there have been four specific submissions of nondegradation statements that are acceptable or have been accepted by the Secretary, whereas there are perhaps some four or five other State statements that are under consideration within the Department. There are perhaps two States that have indicated at this point in time officially that they have reservations about adopting such a statement. And so I would anticipate that in terms of the nondegradation statement, it will take some time yet to resolve the language questions with regard to the acceptable statements in this area. Mr. WRIGHT. So you have seen it from both sides. You have been directly involved, of course, with the water pollution control activity for the State of Texas and, more recently, in the Department position which you now- hold. Do you consider the machinery created in the 1966 law with respect to the creation of standards by the States and their approval by the Department of the Interior to be adequate machinery? Do you think that is working our pretty well? Mr. MOORE. Well, I think there is no doubt that the Water Quality Act of 1965, which set the stage for the adoption of the water quality standards by the States and their submission to the Secretary of the Interior, has accelerated the activities at the State level in terms of water pollution control. I think the record will reflect this. I think the procedure for requiring hearings on proposed water quality standards has done a great deal to secure understanding among the people of the country generally, first as to the quality problems that are faced by them in their respective States, and then some measure of the magnitude of the task in terms of improving the water pollution control programs within the State. 04-3T6---GS---6 PAGENO="0082" 74 There has undoubtedly been a continuing, sometimes controversial, dialog between the States and the Federal agencies. I think the concept that must guide all of those involved in the water pollution control field is that the full resources of all levels of government-Federal, State, and local-must be concentrated upon the problem if we are to achieve measurable results within any reason- able time framework. Now, despite the fact that the discussions with regard to language- which, in reality, does not improve in itself the quality of the water, despite the discussions with regard to the language contained rn vari- ous policy statement.s in the water quality standards, I would have to say overall that, in my view, substantial progress has been made in the water quality standards setting process. I would hope that the States and the Department of the Interior can resolve the unresolved questions in water quality standards as rapidly as possible in order that the full resources of the Federal and State governments, as well as local governments, can be concentrated in achieving the objectives-which is really all the standards at this time are contemplated in the water quality standards setting process. Mr. WRIGHT. The Department is not at this time seeking any change in that relationship as set forth in the earlier act, is it? Mr. MOORE. Not except insofar as the foreseeable impact of the un- availability of the full authorization for construction grants might have upon the implementation schedules contained in the water quality standards and this has led us to this financing proposal that is before the Congress now. This can materially affect the implementation schedules and the tar- get dates of roughly 1972. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Unless money is available, of course, they cannot achieve their objectives with the rapidity that they had anticipated. But the question is directed primarily to the machinery of State-Fed- eral relationship. You do not see any reason for asking for a change in that, do you? Mr. MooRE. No, sir; I do not. Mr. WRIGHT. Now, with respect to the big matter of financino, I think we will have an opportunity to discuss that further with §ec- retary Udall sometime next week and perhaps we can spare you a lengthy discussion of that at the moment. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OiL RELEASES Concerning expansion of the oil pollution control capacity of the Government, it seems to me more that what we really need is some way to move in rapidly when we discover that some of this oil had been released, and get it cleaned up before it does irreparable damage to regions, beaches, and other areas. Additionally, perhaps we need some assurance of economical liability,, responsibility on the parts of these vessels that are releasing this oil. Of course, many of the oil slicks that have been discovered have not been traceable to the site source. You know, of course, the Navy has identified more than a hundred sunken ships that dot our coastlines, some of which many contain oil, some of which oil may be released at any undisclosed future moment as the bulkheads give way, the rust PAGENO="0083" 75 works its way through the tanks? There is not much that we can do in a situation of sunken ship-most of them sunk during World War 11-to require anybody to indemnify the Government from the cost of cleaning it up, is there? Mr. MOORE. No, sir; there would not be in those cases unless there were some funds provided for that purpose. I do understand, and this is prior to my association with the De- partment of the Interior, but I do understand that there has been an examination-I think largely at the instigation of a member of this committee, Congressman Howard--of the large number of sunken vessels along the eastern coast-I do not know how extensive this was-to determine whether or not these sunken vessels did in fact actu- ally contain oil after this period of time, and I assume the Coast Guard will be able to speak to this point later. But it is my understanding that in most instances, there was no oil found in these sunken vessels. It had during the interim dispersed or leaked. One of the things that is commonly overlooked in talking about oil is that it does not remain in its released state indefinitely, and it can be in the process of time broken down and it can be consumed by minute organisms so it does disappear. It is entirely possible that much of the oil that was in these sunken tankers that were sunk during World War II has been largely dissipated in this process. There is a problem, however, of identifying the source of oil specifi- cally. One of the procedures under discussion for this purpose is what is being referred to as the tagging of oil; that is, the classification of oil in various cargoes and its identification on board vessels, so that if it is discovered loose in the ocean, then the source can be `at least narrowed if not necessarily pinponted. MANDATORY INSURANCE PROPOSAL Mr. WRIGHT. What thought has been gven to some layman for re- quiring all ships of the United States and any foreign ships using 11.5. harbors to carry insurance to indemnify this particular kind of damage? Mr. MOORE. I will have to say, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I do not know what has been done in this particular area. Mr. WRIGHT. Might not this be a pretty good idea to require all ships, vessels, that contain a sufficient quantity of petroleum matter, or other pollutants, for that matter, to enter into some sort of insurance program whereby there would be knowledge and certainty that you would somebody to whom we could hit to recoup the cost the Govern- ment would incur in cleaning up the beaches, the oil from the waters? Mr. MOORE. Mr. Finnegan tells me there was some examination of this particular question with regard to insurance. If I may, I will let him speak to that particular question. Mr. WRIGHT. Sure. Thank you. Mr. FINNEGAN. Mr. Chairman, there is very little discussion I should not say-we did some looking into the problem, but what we could find out is the insurance companies who might undertake to write this type of risk wanted to limit their liability, which might cause difficulties if you had a large spill of oil which was pretty expensive. They still wanted to limit their liability to the value of the vessel. PAGENO="0084" 76 If that vessel had been broken up, its value would be nominal under the present law. Mr. WRIGHT. Notwithstanding, it would be some help, would it not? Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes, it would. Mr. WRIGHT. It might be thoroughly adequate help in many cases? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. It strikes me as something we might think about so long as we are concerning ourselves with this particular phase of the overall pollution problem. PROPOSED APPLICATION OF OCS REVENUES TO OIL POLLUTION CONTROL Now, certainly I believe that we must do everything within our power to strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to clean up any such problems rapidly, to require the ship or vessel that is the cause of it to pay for it, the owner of that vessel, and other- wise to develop such research and other controllants as may be developed to improve our technology. I understand the Government receives about a billion dollars a year in leases for offshore drilling. I wonder if it could be a feasible proposition to dedicate some portion of that money to this particular fight against pollution by oil from vessels and otherwise in the off- shore areas? Mr. FINNEGAN. Mr. Chairman, I think you are referring to the Outer Continental Shelf. I believe the United States does get under the leasing program revenues. Mr. WRIGHT. That is right. Mr. FINNEGAN. I might add, in a recent report by the Senate In- terior Committee, the Department was asked to look into the possi- bility of dedicating these revenues, or a portion of them, for this purpose. The bill that you have before you, both the Senate-passed bill and the companion, H.R. 15906, provides for the establishment of a fund, revolving fund, and for the payment of direct appropriations for this purpose. If you use Outer Continental Shelf revenues, that would be a con- tinuing source of revenues. You would probably be building up a large amount of money in the fund that couldn't be used for any other pur- pose and whether or not he would have oil spills often enough that would use this money might be questionable and we would hope that they would not occur on a rapid basis. PROPOSED FEDERAL CONTROL OF OIL DISCHARGES FROM SHORE INSTALLATfONS Mr. WRIGHT. There is one thing. The previous witness, Mr. Oem- ing, who is the executive secretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission, made a statement which I expect you heard. This state- ment seems to reflect the feelings that we hear from most States. He says we do not agree with the expansion of Federal authority in one area of oil pollution control, that of shore installations. He said vessels engaged in interstate commerce should and must be under Federal au- thority and that is understandable. Btit control of oil pollution from PAGENO="0085" 77 shore installations should remain primarily the responsibility of the State. He went on to recite Michigan quality standards and their require- ment that no visible film of oil, gasoline-related materials, or globules of grease discharged into those waters should be allowed in Michigan. I daresay most of the States have standards of similar type. Why do you think it is necessary for the Federal Government to get into the business of controlling shore installations, since they are al- ready controlled by State law and must be under our Water Pollution Control Act? Mr. MooRE. Mr. Chairman, the concern with shore installations is primarily the question of the cleanup of a spill into the water from a shore installation. Now, these spills, as you might expect, can vary all the way from relatively insignificant-a thin film of oil, as referred to there, to a rather substantial quantity where you have shore installations that border on bodies of water. And the major thrust of this proposed legis- lation, insofar as the Department of the Interior and pollution aspects of spills are concerned, is to secure an early cleanup, so that the damage is minimized, and depending upon the volume of the spill, the larger the spill the more risk and the more urgency there is to its cleanup. Now, it may be that the State jurisdictions have sufficient capability to deal with relatively small spills; but, in `terms of some of the spills that we have experienced, and particularly in terms of the spill at San Juan, though that was from a vessel, had you had anywhere near that quantity of oil released from a shore installation because of an accident of any conceivable kind, there is a necessity to do `the cleanup work immediately. Now, in terms of the water quality standards and implementation plans associated with them, the procedures for treating violations of the standards, or the abatement of pollution that occurs in violation of the standards, is spelled out in the statute and takes at least a period of 6 months. At the point of time at which the problem arises, we are not concerned so much with who did it, who is the violator, as we are concerned with the immediate problem of cleanup. And `the concern is for massive spills from shore installations. Now, when I say "massive spills," of course this is a question of degree, and you can always say down to a certain amount it obviously could be handled elsewhere. But in terms of what we may face in spills, in terms of the volumes that are being stored along watercourses, you could have a rather substantial spill from a shore installation and have `the same effect as if it had occurred in a navigable water right offshore. Mr. WRIGHT. You are probably right, you could, but is it not actually true that those result primarily not from vessels? Mr. MooRE. Yes, those would be more serious ones in terms of large quantity. There is nothing to preclude the Secretary, under the legislation, to, in effect, assure the rapid cleanup to which I referred by arrangements with the States, so that you would have a rapid cleanup. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. You already had that authority, didn't you? Mr. MoORE. You can say that we had the authority in terms of the technical assistance program of the Federal Water Pollution Control PAGENO="0086" 78 Administration, which depends upon a request from the State, and then you have what can be an even more critical problem, and that is the question of funding. Mr. WRIGHT. Since there have been many cases apparently in which-like the one in Honolulu this morning-there is not any way immediately to know the force of the encroachment, it is going to be necessary, is it not, for the Federal Government to possess the authority and, fast, to effect an immediate cleanup, and then be responsible to find the culprit for reimbursement of costs? Mr. MOORE. This is correct. Mr. WmGIiT. So that being the case, with that kind of authority to effect a cleanup, I fail to see the need for expanding the Federal authority of control and juridiction within the States to their instal- lations that lie along the shores of these waters. Mr. MooRE. of course, this leads, in terms of effecting the cleanup to the question of money: Who pays for it? And it leads you to the question of whether or not this should he a cost borne by the taxpayers generally of the Nation, or whether you should attempt to recover the cost. And when you come to the question of recovering the cost, you come up against the question of fixing liability, so that the chain of who shall pay~ Mr. WRIGHT. Does the Government not possess authority under the law to go into hearings, into court if necessary, to recover costs from i)eople who have violated the existing law by releasing pollutants? Mr. MOoRE. These costs can be recovered in the sense that the United States would be the one that would recover costs incurred by the van- oiis agencies involved in this area. But the costs so recovered accrue to the general credit of the Treasury and not, as proposed here, to the revolving fund concept that is embodied in this le~islation. Those who are responsible for the spills would be the ones ultimately paying for them. Mr. WRIGHT. Of course, a revolving fund for appropriation. Mr. MooRE. But this again would del)end upon an appropriation in advance that might or might not be enough to accommodate the spills that you had during the course of that particular year. It is a question of how you pay for the costs. and the concept embodied here was it should be a revolving fund. This seemed to be the easiest way to approach it. Mr. WRmIIT. Departments `and agencies are constantly coming be- fore Congress to request appropriations to accommodate needs for various services that have found their expenses are higher than they anticipated. I do not really comprehend the need for your invading the States under the jurisdiction that we gave to them, and under the require- ments put on them already to come up with meaningful control ineas- ure~, with an additional Federal control inside the States. Mr. MOORE. You get back `again, though, to the fundamental ones- tion as to whether or not you can achieve the rapid cleanup. As I say, on can get `the cleanup in the small spills, but you are always -faced with the prospect of what do you do if you have one of substan- tial ma.~nitude within what the States would have, to say is a State's jurisdiction in terms of the wnter hounding it. Let's take Lake Michi- gan, for example. If you had a massive spill from a tanker as con- PAGENO="0087" 79 trasted with a massive spill from a shore installation, the net effect in terms of the waters in Lake Michigan would be the same, so that you still are up against the question of achieving early cleanup. Mr. WRIGHT. I think we are agreed, you need the authority t;o achieve an early cleanup, and in addition, you need the authority to find out who did it if you can and try to get the money from them. But I still fail to see why you need this additional expansion of Fed- eral authority within the State areas. Do you contemplate under this bill that shore installations would be installations along the ocean, installations along the lakes, instal- lations along the navigable streams, rivers, all of those? Which ones of those? Mr. MOORE. It is along navigable waters and the territorial waters of the United States. Mr. WnmiIT. All of the navigable rivers of the United States? Any- body who has any kind of an installation on that river that uses oil of any kind, any industry, any type of operation that uses any oil, you would come in and have your controls over them, right? Mr. MOORE. Only if you had a spill on the waters. Mr. WRIGI-IT. I understand that. I understand that. I wonder why you seek this authority in respect to oil? I wonder why you are not seeking it in regard to these other pollutants your industrial waste profile series deals with? You have a study relating to blast furnaces, steel mills, one relating to motor vehicles and parts, one relating to paper mills, one relating to textile mill products, one relating to leather tanning plants, one relating to the meat products, one relating to plastic materials and rosins. All of these things, as well as other things, are pollutants of the waters, and they cannot send on to the waters materials that need to be cleaned up and taken out of the water. 1-IAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OTHER THAN OIL Why do you limit your request to oil? Petroleum products? Mr. MOORE. Well, actually H.R. 15906 would provide the Depart- ment similar authority with respect to other hazardous substances. This would be a matter of the degree of hazard that is involved in terms of the immediate effect that can follow the discharges. Mr. `WRIGI-IT. 1-low would that hurt you if you go into the courts with the statute that says oil and other hazardous substances? What is going to be the definition c-f a hazardous substance? Mr. MOORE. Well, the definition is found in the proposed section 21(a) of the act: Any substance of any description or origin, other than oil, which, when dis- charged from a vessel or shore installation into any waters in substantial quan- tities, presents, in the judgment of the Secretary, an imminent and substantial hazard to the public health or welfare. Mr. WRIGHT. That leaves it up to the Secretary to decide whatever lie says is hazardous substance? CORPS OF ENGINEERS AUTHORITY RESPECTING DEPOSITS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS I am told by a person this morning that. the Corps of Army En- gineers has billed a chemical company operation $54,000, on a basis PAGENO="0088" 80 of 78 cents per cubic yard, for materials that they have released into the waters. Are you familiar with that.? Mr. MOORE. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that. Mr. WRIGhT. Suspended solids were released over a period of 1 year into the waters. We received a telephone call from the company that just received the bill from the Corps of Army Engineers saying they owed them $54,000 for solid waste materials that had been re- leased into the river, and the Corps of Army Engineers claims to have authority to bill them for dredging these solids from navigable chan- nels under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. Why, under the same existing law, does not the Department of the Interior possess that authority? Mr. MOORE. Without knowing the particu]Lar circumstances, I would assume this is probably under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engi- neers in terms of navigation hazards. That is all the offhand relation- ship that I could see in that particular instance. Mr. WRIGHT. Wyandotte Chemical Co., the McLouth Steel Co., Pennsalt Co., under the 1899 statute, has been assessed several thou- sand dollars by the Corps of Army Engineers for their share of the costs of dredging these solids out of the water. Wyandotte Chemical, which apparently disposed of most of the material, originally pro- posed to pay a cost. share of $58,000 for removing the solids from the rivers. However, since that original contract, Wyandotte has apparent- ly made promise to clear up its operations for a figure now of $25,000. But the corps is charging Wyandotte. This is still in negotation ap- parently and could be altered. The district engineer has contacted two other companies through correspondence and has asked them to pay certain sums. They are still in negotiation with the corps. The basis for these cost sharing charges for dredging is cited by the Corps of Engineers as being a Supreme Court decision in the case of U.S. v. Republic Steel, handed down in 1960, in which decisioii the Supreme Court ruled that industrial deposits were within the meaning of the 1899 act. The charge is based on an effluent suspended solids loadmg and is in effect an effluent fee. The corps claims they do not have to prove these solids were actually removed or dredged from navigable channels. In the face of a Supreme Court decision of that type and on the basis of it being applied by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, I am worried if there might not be authorization under existing law? Mr. MOORE. From what I understand of the corps authority it is exercised when there is some effect upon navigation. And in view of the fact this refers to dredging, I would assume that they are dredging material which they could identify as having been discharged by these particular industries into a water course, and thereby affecting the navigation of that water course. Because the authority of the corps, a.s I understand it, is generally exercised with respect to the navigability of the water. Mr. WRIGhT. Do you have a specific citation on that, Mr. Finnegan? Mr. FINNEGAN. That would have been the Refuse Act of 1899, I believe is what they are referring to. PAGENO="0089" 81 COVERAGE OF SHORE INSTALLATION PROVISION Mr. WRIGHT. Now, in Maine recently, an incident on which the beaches were fouled by oil seepage, everybody says there is a ship out there, for us to do something. Finally, it was discovered to be a school which had some oil that was released inadvertently when the oil tank at the school rusted through and got into the sewer system and floated down into the ocean. What would be the position of the Department of the Interior in that respect? Is that school a shore installation? Mr. MOORE. Well, whether that is a shore installation- Mr. FINNEGAN. It would have to be located in or adjacent to the navigable waters under the bill as S. 2760, as passed by the Senate. Mr. WRIGHT. How adjacent is "adjacent"? Mr. FINNEGAN. We would look upon it as located fairly close to the water, probably within a quarter of a mile, and natural courses. Mr. WRIGHT. Quarter of a mile? Mr. FINNEGAN. I would not want to state categorically that would be the case, sir. I think you would have to look at each instance. But many oil tank firms, and so forth, such as in New Jersey, are located close to the water's edge. Mr. MOORE. These installations have to be used in the handling or processing of any kind of matter which is adjacent to navigable waters. In other words, it has to be an installation designed or intended to be used for processing the substance that is involved. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, Mr. Denney. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Moore, you made the statement, I believe, 31 States had cooperative water pollution standards submitted and approved. It seems to me that this committee must write a law that the States can live with. And, of course, obtain the objective of cleaning up the pollution of our streams. IMPACT OF PROPOSED CONTRACT PROGRAM ON RURAL AREA NEEDS I am concerned, again, about the fact that the impact at this time seems to be on the metropolitan area. If we are ever going to solve the problems of t.he cities, we are going to have to start dispersing the peo- ple, and it looks to me like some of the thrust of this law is to put the biggest expenditure of homes in the metropolitan areas and leave out the rural areas and the small towns, which were what the original act had in mind to try and do something so that they could clean up their streams and have proper sanitary' facilities. Now, do you have any ideas as to whether or not these amendments we are considering will protect the rural areas in any way? Mr. MOORE. Well, let me say that in terms of the cash construction grants program, the $225 million that has been requested of the Con- gress this year, the distribution of these funds would be as provided under the current statute, and such sums as must be appropriated by Congress in future years would still be governed by the distribution. The question has obviously been raised as to whether or not the pro- posed contracting procedure or debt financing procedure as outlined can be utilized by' small er cities. Now, there is nothing magic about the 125,000 limitation. This fig- ii.re is one that has appeared in prior statutes. PAGENO="0090" 82 The program, as I indicated this morning, had initially been in- tended for, and so designed, as to be used largely by the smaller cities, or at least those up to the standard metropolitan statistical area size, and continued in that vein from its inception in 1957 to the amendment in 1966. I think one of the things we need to remember is that the plants that have been constructed durin.g this period are not going to be subject to reconstruction at this stage in time. They may require expansion. But certainly it was not intended in the course of developing this legis- lation to cut off the needs of the smaller community. Because the initial statute, until 1966, did make the program less attractive to the larger metropolitan areas, and because the problem of municipal waste treat- ment facilities is concentrated where the people are, there was some feeling that we should accelerate the availability of these funds for the metropolitan areas. Now, one of the questions, quite frankly, that has not been raised, and to which we have given ~ome attention since this particular issue was raised, was the fact that within standard metropolitan statistical areas-this is particularly true in the chairman's home State-there are quite often cities of smaller size than the 125,000 or other than the 50,000. And certainly in terms of achieving an adequate waste treat~ ment system, on a basis broader than one city, t.he intent was in these standard metropolitan statistical areas, to provide the smaller corn:. munities assistance as you would the major city within that standard metropolitan area. I want to emphasize again there was no intent here to cut off the need's of smaller communities. Mr. PENNEY. As a matter of fact, though, the Secretary asked for a contract guaranteed bond arrangement, so that unless it is a metro- politan area., the chances are that the smaller communities will not be ble to finance the matter. So they will have to go `to their program, will they not., and not having adequate financing, then that program will slow down? Mr. Mooiu~. In terms of the ability cf the local community to fi- nance, however, the financial responsibility which they have to demon- strate is the capability to pay off the non-Federal share. They do not have to demonstrate capability to pay off the full cost. And in any event, whether it. is done through a system of sewer charges or whether it is done through a system of tax funds, they have to demonstrate the financial capability to then pay that off if they are following any- thing other than a cash payment for the project. Chances are that it will be done by some system of debt financing in any event, either by tax revenues or by a system of charges. GRANT ASSISTANCE CUTOFF FOR FAILURE TO S'GBMIT NONDEGREDATIOx STATEMENT NOT DIREC1~D Mr. PENNEY. Do you know, it has come to my attention that some people feel that they were told to advise the Water Pollution Control Council `of the respective `States that unless they have by July 1, 1968 a provision in there referring to the nondegradation statement that the Secretary is insisting upon, there would not even be any grant-in-aid programs for them? Mr. MOORE. Well, there ha.s been no such instruction issued. PAGENO="0091" 83 Mr. DENNEY. I have never seen it in writing. This has just been told to me orally. Mr. MooRE. No, I must emphasize again there are certain excep- tions in most of the States' standards, and certainly there is no intent during the course of this fiscal year, before this procedure is con- cluded, to cut. off the construction grants for the States. Mr. DENNEY. Well now, I just have one more question, and it always concerns me in any legislation that the drafter, Secretary Udall, and your Commission has done an outstanding job. You are working with the States and I commend you for it. How do we know who is going to be the next Secretary of Interior or the next Commissioner? RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Are we turning over authority to the point where we, as Members of Congress, are abrogating our office to the point where we can write up standards and say to the States, "Your standards are not satis- factory unless you have done such and such." Mr. MOORE. I think in terms of the continuing responsibility of the Department of Interior or the Secretary, or the Commissioner, it would be hard for me to foresee the time when the Congress would in any event surrender its oversight of these activities in terms of the application of these various procedures. These are attempts to arrive at the objective, and always in the process of proposing a par- ticular procedure you inevitably come up with a better working rela- tionship if you pursue the matter. There is better understanding in terms of the relationship between the Federal agencies and the State, if you do pursue it, and have the understanding that I think you can. Mr. DENNEY. For instance, I have in my hand a letter dated Janu- ary 31, 1968, written by Mr. I-I. C. Ray for Robert S. Burd, to my State of Nebraska, where it says, "As I explained in my recent tele- phone call, it is our policy to secure a firm commitment to secondary treatment." Now, if, in effect, the States adopt these standards, send them in, and here is the Federal Government writing to the States saymg, "Look, your standards are pretty good, except for this that you have to put in." Now, tell me who is writing the standards. Mr. MooRE. Well, the alternative, of course, would be to say at some point: It would be disapproved in terms of the question of secondary treatment. This is one that is unresolved in several of the midwestern States. - As the chairman has indicated, my prior association has been with the State of Texas. In terms of secondary treatment, I believe this is a matter where the technology is known and the need is such that it should be applied across the board. We had there applied it within the State of Texas at the State level, insisted upon secondary treatment, but I think it might be unfair for US to indicate to a State that its standards were unsatisfactory with- out indicating where or in wha t regard they were felt to be unsatis- factory. PAGENO="0092" 84 Mr. DENNEY. The thing I am concerned about, I can visualize th~ small manufacturing plant and the small municipality thinking the~ have done the job to stop the pollution and then they have to give i the secondary treatment, requiring expensive machinery and tech nological changes they have made, and so forth. Mr. MOORE. Well, I think with any rule or any generalization i would have to be conditioned by exceptions, and I recognize there ar instances in which an exception ought to be made and, quite frankly I have had some discussions about your State and the relationshij in terms of interstate waters, with regard to this particular question Let me say this in terms of the general secondary treatment require ment. I regard it from the State's view, and then I have continued t regard this requirement for secondary treatment for industrial waste~ as intended to reflect that a higher degree of treatment would noi be required from municipalities than would be required of industry and vice versa. The intent was to assure that those who were making this discharg would be held to, as nearly as could be determined, the same standard This, of course, is an entirely separate treatment. But, when you say who is writing the standards, I think that the Department of Interioi does have a responsibility to indicate to the States, at inervals, thos( areas in which they do not regard the State's standards as coming uj to par. This has been quite often overlooked. This was reflected throughout the standard-setting process. Recognition has had to b given to the differences in State laws as one of the examples. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say for the record here thai my State has been one of cooperation with your Department. I am nol trying to upset it. I just want to write a good bill. Thank you. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. McEwen? Mr. MOE WEN. Mr. Moore, so I can understand exactly what the ful meaning of the proposed legislation is, I am trying to get some under. standing, if you will, of where we have been, as well as where we ma~ be going with this new legislation. APPROVALS OF STATE STANDARDS Under the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am con cerned as to how many States now have had their standards approved Was there testimony this morning that there are now 31 States? Mr. MOORE. One of those is a territory, but that is correct; 31 0111 of a total of 54 jurisdictions. Mr. MOEWEN. ~Did they include the 10 that were supposed to havE been approved and then reviewed? Mr. MOORE. That is correct. They include the first 10 that were ap proved, one or two of which may have acceptable nondegradatior statements. Mr. MOE WEN. Were those approved with any conditions? Mr. MOORE. Of the States standards approved to date, some havE been approved without exclusions, others with exclusions. Mr. MCEWEN. Now, in an effort to understand this. Mr. Moore, ] notice that section 30, according to a release from the Department o: Interior, when Secretary Edwards spoke before the Federal Bar Asso PAGENO="0093" 85 iation in Albuquerque, N. Mex., and April 6 of this year, he said, and I am quoting from this release: As of March 25, 1968, the Secretary had determined that all of the water luality standards of 28 States where there were interstate waters met the equirements of the Federal act. ~TJBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER OF APPROVAL OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS That was on April 6 of this year. Prior to that, on February 7 of his year, the Federal Register, Secretary Udall published the regu- ations and water quality standards in which it is stated that as the ;tandards are approved, they will be published in the Federal ~egister. Now you say that in addition to the figure of 28 that Secretary ~dwards gave, according to this publication of the Federal Register, ;here are three additional, and again I know of no publication in the ~ederal Register of any States having been approved, but can you tdd anything to clarify this? Mr. MOORE. I will have to say this is a matter to which I have not given any personal attention in the nearly 21/2 months since I have been iere. I am aware that there has been an exchange of memoranda lealing with the legal question of what must be printed in the Federal ~egister. The reason this question has arisen I think is because, and I will ust mention a practical problem, in some States the individual sub- nission by the State could represent a stack of material 12 or 15 inches iigh, and that is just from one State. I think the question that has been under discussion with the Solici- ;or of the Department of Interior is whether that entire submission, with modifications, has to be printed in the Federal Register. I am loing this strictly from my impression and I may be mistaken. And ;hen there has been discussion, if something less than that can be Drinted in the Federal Register, what would have to be printed in the L~ederal Register. I do know there probably has not been any submission to the F'ederal Register for publication. Mr. MCEWEN. Well, the procedures that are spelled out in the E'ederal Register of February 7 of this year is entitled "Procedures Cor Adoption and Promulgation of State Standards," which is quite specific. In section 620.2, promulgation, paragraph (b), it states: `Notice of determination by the Secretary is stated after the water ~uality standards meet the criteria Of section 10(c) (3) of the Federal ict and shall be published in the Federal Register. Such notice shall Lncorporate by reference the document containing water quality ;tandards." Does that not seem quite explicit, Mr. Moore, when it says it shall Lncorporate by reference any such water quality standards? Mr. MOORE. Well, that does sound specific. Perhaps the question was resolved, and I am unaware of it. My first day was February 8, but I do not, as you have indicated, Deheve there has been a publication of any standard in the Register. PAGENO="0094" 86 I will be glad to check this matter and furnish the committee the information with regard to the publication. T.t is not a matter to which I have given my own attention. Mr. MCEWEN. This, Mr. Moore, was the day before your first day in office, which was February 7. but it does say in ther~ by referen~e. I can see the question that will arise, that you will incorporate in the Federal Register the entire quality standards of the States. This will be very voluminous and I take it that is why the Secretary's procedure i's spelled out in `here, which is "shall be by reference." I am correct, then, in my belief that there has been nothing yet published in the Federal Register indicating official approval of tiny State's water quality standards. Mr. Mooii~. Not to my knowledge. It has not been submitted to the Federal Register. I might add, as I understand it, the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act, as amended, does not require publication in the Federal Register. This question arose by reason of the Public Information Act, and we tried to get something into the Federal Register that would serve as adequate notice of the adoption, but not require the full publication of the standard. I will check into that and furnish the committee the specific informa- tion as to whether or not, or when some are to be released for the Register. REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Mr. MCEWEN. Well, do you agree, Mr. Moore, that the present law is clear that once there is a determination that standards are acceptable, that is standards of a State, that they `are `approved? That is a final approval that will then occur? What I am saying, Mr. Moore, it is not your view, is it, that these standards of the States be reviewed annually or from time to time? Mr. MOORE. No, there is a procedure provided in the law for either the States or the Department of Interior to revise these standards. In other words, the statute provides that the procedure for altering these standards is either State initiative or initiative of the Department of Interior. Mr. MCEWEN. Well, it is a change. It is a bilateral act, is that correct? Mr. MOORE. Well, there is a procedure. The Department of the In- terior could fix these standards, if the standards submitted by the States were not acceptable to the Secretary of the Department of Interior. Mr. MOEWEN. Once these standards have been set and approved, then you do not envision changing them after that? Mr. MOORE. Oh, well, I think that there would have to be changes in time. I do not think we anticipate that there will be changes every 6 months or every year. For example, YOU could revise standards through the conference procedure that is provided. They would have a degree of stability, but I do not believe they should be regarded as fixed in concrete for all time. Mr. MCCARTHY (presiding). Well, thank you very much, Commis- sioner. PAGENO="0095" 87 Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Our next witness is Vice Adm. Paul E. Trimble, of the U.S. Coast Guard. Admiral Trimble, I would like to have you introduce the members who will accompany you. ~TATEMENT OP VICE ADM. PAUL B. TRIMBLE, U.S. COAST GUARD; ACCOMPANIED BY ADMIRAL MURPHY, CAPTAIN JENKINS, AND COMMANDER DeWOLP Admiral TRIMBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of saving time, I would be pleased to introduce my statement for the record and just make a few comments. First, let me introduce Admiral Murphy on my far right, Captain Jenkins, and Commander DeWoif. Mr. MCCARTHY. Fine. Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record at this point. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. PAUL E. ThIMBLE ON OIL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the opportunity to appear today and offer the views of the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation on proposed pollution legislation, 5.. 2760 and HR. 15906 and similar bills, is appreciated. Section 4 of 5. 2760 and the provisions of HR. 15906, which represent a revi- sion and modification of the existing Oil Pollution Act of 1924, are of great im- portance to the Coast Guard. The need for additional legislation to combat oil pollution has become much more urgent with the TORRIiIY CANYON and subse- quent marine disasters involving tankers. We believe that S. 2760 with amend- ments which have been proposed by the Administration, H.R. 15906 and similar bills under consideration, will provide a much more effective base for the preven- tion and control of both catastrophic and minor incidents of oil pollution. Over the past months, commencing with a joint Transportation/Interior Oil Pollution Study directed by the President last spring, we have been engaged with the Interior Department in consideration of how the entire Federal estab~ lishment can best attack the oil pollution problem. It was concluded by both Departments that the regulatory authority for shipboard procedures, methods and equipment relating to oil pollution, prevention and control, should be vested in the Secretary of Transportation, and the proposed amendments to S. 2760, and the language of H.R. 15906 reflect this conclusion. This provision reflects an appreciation of existing Coast Guard functional responsibilities in the mari- time sphere, our involvment in matters of pollution from vessels, and recognition that pollution from ships, its prevention and control must logically be integrated into the overall scheme for regulation of ship operations. For the same reason, this conclusion has been reached with respect to the regulatory features of HR. 16207, S. 2525 and similar bills dealing with waste from watercraft. We urge that these bills be amended to reflect the regulatory provisions which are now included in HR. 15906. Specifically, regulatory authority covering vessel equipment and procedures would be assigned to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation after consultation with the Secretary of Interior. An illustration of how closely existing Coast Guard authority relates to pre- vention of pollution from vessels is the Tank Vessel Act (46 U.S.C. 391a). That act provides authority for supervision of tanker design and construction, han- dling and storage of inflammable or combustible liquid cargo in bulk, fittings and equipment, manning and operation. The objective is maritime safety. It is difficult to divorce risks created by oil escape from maritime safety. The Coast Guard is also intimately connected with ship and equipment design and con- struction; with navigation and ship control; with licensing, competence, and PAGENO="0096" 88 performance of shipboard personnel; with the handling and movement of hazard- ous cargoes; with administration and enforcement of the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 designed to prevent oil pollution beyond the territorial sea in the so-called "prohibited zone". Navigation and ship control include rules of the nautical ioad; establishment of sea-lanes and other marine traffic supervision; aids to navigation; radio telephone communications, radar, depth sounders, and other electronic equipment; machinery specifications and safety requirements. Com- petence of shipboard personnel, examination and licensing, and the requirements for and the adequacy of pilotage all pertain to preventing marine casualties causing pollution. In addition to the Tank Vessel Act, the Coast Guard has a general statutory obligation for review of plans and equipment for other new vessel construction. Presently there exists no very effective device for the treatment of a per- sistent oily discharge to create a clean water effluent. Because of oil's very nature, effective pollution control must look towards preventing oil from getting upon the water. Oil discharges from vessels of the magnitude which cause the greatest concern are usually triggered by a marine casualty. The prevention of marine disasters is one of the Coast Guard's primary missions. Because one can- not simply prohibit the transportation of oil over the water, or outlaw collisions and groundings, solution to the problem must be found in those factors which contribute niost to a lowering of the risk. Most of the known factors, however, already fall within the existing responsibilities of the Coast Guard. The grounding several weeks ago of the Liberian tanker, the OCEAN EAGLE, at the entrance of San Juan Harbor with subsequent break-up and discharge of about 2,000,000 gallons of crude oil is the latest vivid reminder of the catastrophic potential of a major oil spill. Coast Guard was promptly on the scene of this marine disaster. The crew was rescued and the safety of the port then became a major consideration. The local Coast Guard commander set in motion a series of contingency actions similar to those developed throughout the Coast Guard as an aftermath of the TORREY CANYON in an attempt to control, abate anti eliminate the pollution threat. Participating in the operation were Coast Guard personnel, boats and helicopters. The Department of Interior was notified and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and Coast Guard experts were dispatched from Washington to San Juan to advise and assist as appro- priate. Using C-130 aircraft, we made repeated flights to and from New York carrying a skimmer craft, floating boom and other materials. At the request of the Coast Guard, the Navy furnished salvage specialists and ships. The Corps of Engineers and the Puerto Rican Government also participated. This experi- ence points up the value and urgency of multi-agency planning and participation in such a casualty, including State and local authorities and industry whenever appropriate. Experience also dictates the need for clear-cut authority for the on-scene commander, immediate implementation of contingency plans and the need for full utilization of existing resources, communications and other tools. Those provisions of S. 2760, if amended, and H.R. 15906 which deal with clean- up, place the ultimate responsibility for clean-up of the oil with the Secretary of the Interior. Provision is included for the Secretary of the Interior to delegate that authority to other agencies through appropriate agreements. Because of the extensive resource capability of the Coast Guard, distributed geographically as well as the regulatory authority incorporated in HR. 15906 and S. 2760, if amended, relating also to clean-up procedures, we would expect to enter into long term agreements with Interior to define geographic areas or other appropriate bases where the Coast Guard would exercise the delegated authority for plan- ing, development of the necessary equipment and materials, and for operational direction and on-scene control and coordination of clean-up efforts should an incident occur. The strength of Coast Guard planning and operational capability stems from our intimate knowledge of vessel construction and operation, knowl- edge of the navigable and ocean waters, long experience in regulating the water transportation of hazardous cargoes, and our handling of vessel casualties in- cluding search and rescue operations. Additionally, it would be important to spell out in the agreement the circumstances and the types of expenses unique to oil removal efforts for which Coast Guard would be reimbursed from the revolving fund which the proposed bills provide. Stockpiling of materials and equipment at key locations may be advisable. For many years the Coast Guard has participated for the United States in the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization which continues to deal with oil pollution and other maritime related problems of international concern. PAGENO="0097" 89 fact, international maritime safety conventions are normally genézated rQugh this~organization. Regarding the enforcement aspects of the proposed legislation, it is di~cu1.t to sess at this time the extent to which additional Coast Guard forces or facilities ould be r~quired~ P~esent1y, the Coast Guard ènforces~ the 1961 Oil Pollutioli Act is noted above) and participates in the enfQrcement of the 1924 011 Pollution et, and the Refuse Aet of 1899. We anticipate Initially the utilization of existing rces with additional emphasis on pollution aspects. We now include oil spill Erveillance in our coastal air and vessel patrols. As budgetary resources permit, e plan to strengthen ~ur port safety operations. Coast Guard marine technical ~rsonnel have been working to improve tanker structural designs, waste oil and her pollutant containment, waste oil separators and other pertinent devices. iso, as appropriate, we will include funds in future budget requests for research support Coast Guard oil pollution responsibilities. That concludes my prepared statement. I welcome the opportunity to discuss iy of my comments in greater detail at yoi,ir request, or to answer any other iestions which you may have. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL Admiral TRIMBLE. I am Admiral Trimble, representing the Depart- ient of Transportation and the Coast Guard. Mr. Chairman, we do appreciate the opportunity to appear before us committee and explain the role of the Coast Guard in the preven- on and control of pollution. As Secretary Udall has explained, the administration's recommenda- ons are included in the bills before you. First you have the one dealing with oil pollution, S. 2760 and H.R. ~i906 and similar bills, including administration recommendations hich places the responsibility for enforcement, as far as vessels are )ncerned, in the Coast Guard. In other words, after Interior determines the objectives and stand- rds the Coast Guard would then be charged, after co,nsultation with ie Secretary of Interior, with enforcing and achieving these standards iat InteriOr has established. Finally, as far as the clean-up operations are concerned, the adminis- ~ation ~roposes to place the responsibility in the Secretary of Interior. The Secretary of Interior may then delegate his authority to any bher Federal agency, if he chooses to exercise that responsibility. The Coast Guard might be the recipient of such a delegation and, be- uuse of its resources distributed geographically around the country, -ould be in a position to act in a casualty case, such as the one that ~curred down in San Juan, P.R. VESSEL POLLtrrION CONTRQL My statement, which is included in the record, deals specifically with ie oil pollution aspect and does not deal with the bills such as S. 2525 rid also H.R. 16207 and similar bills. I feel that with respect to the regulatory features, that H.R. 16207, 2525 and similar bills should be amended to reflect the conclusions uat have been reached by the administration with respect to ll.R. 5906, S. 2760 and similar bills. In other words, the regulation as far as ships and equipment are con- ~rned for oil pollution, this principle should be extended to the one ealing with waste from watercraft. PAGENO="0098" 90 My statement does not specifically deal with that, but I make that recommendation separately. Mr. MCCARTHY. You say this is not in your statement. I wonder if you could enlarge on that and tell us why you feel this could be done? Admiral TRIMBLE. My statement deals only with S. 2760, H.R. 15906, and similar bills dealing with the oil pollution question. It was not prepared to deal with the waste from watercraft, which is also being considered by the committee today. I merely wanted to point out that it had been concluded, because of the Coast Guard's almost total invOlvement with vessel operations, that the same principle should be applied, should be included in the bills dealing with waste from watereraft. DRAFT LANGUAGE FOB H.R. 16207 (H.R. 13923, S. 2525) FOR DIVISION OF REGU- LATORY AUTHORITY CONSISTENT WITH DIVISION CONTEMPLATED WITH REGARD TO S. 2760 AND RELATED BILLS Sec. 11.(a) For the purpose of preventing pollution of the navigable waters of the United States from vessels- (1) The Secretary shall issue regulations, in consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and consistent with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and regulations, (A) estab- lishing water quality and conservation objectives and standards, including the substances and matter and the quantities thereOf which the Secretary deter- mines will have a significant deleterious effect on the public health and welfare, to prevent contaminating discharges from vessels; and (B) which permit or prohibit discharges in quantities. under conditions, and at times and locations which be deems appropriate, after taking into consideration the deleterious effects of such discharges on the public health, recreation, and fish and wildlife. When the regulations issued under this paragraph permit the discharge of sub- stance or matter which may constitute a potential obstruction to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States, other than in places where the Sec- retary of the Army authorizes discharge or dumping without permit, such regu- lations shall in no way relieve a discharger from the requirement for a permit issued by, or other requirements, of the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to his existing authority. (2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue regulations which are consistent with the regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection and with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and regulations, governing procedures, methods, and equipment to prevent contaminating discharges from vessels. (b) The regulations issued under this section shall prescribe reasonable schedules for compliance, after taking into consideration the cost for com- pliance, the state of the art for devices and methods.to prevent pollution, and other practical considerations. Schedules for compliance may distinguish be- tween new and existing vessels, and may give special consideration to vessels conforming to previous State requirements or conforming to recommended levels of control set forth in the Handbook of Sanitation and Vessel Construction, Public Health Service, 1965. (c) Before any regulations under this section are issued, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agencies; and the States and industries interested. After regulations are issued, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall afford all interested persons and public and private agencies and organizations a reasonable opportunity to comment thereon be- fore they become effective. (d) Any manufacturer of a device which is designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other pollutant from vessels in accordance with any standards prescriber under subsection (a) (1) of this sec- tion may request the Secretary of the departi:aent in which the Coast Guard is operating to approve such device. PAGENO="0099" 91 (1) The Secretary of the Interior shall determine if any discharge from the ~1evice is in accordance with established water quality standards and shall notify Lhe Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating of his ~1etermination. (2) Upon notification from the Secretary of the Interior that a device is suit- able the Secretary of the department in which the Coas Guard is operaing, if he determines that the device is satisfactory from the standpoint of safety and any other requirements of maritime law or regulation, after consideration of the lesign, installation, operation, material, or other appropriate factors, shaH~ approve the device. Any device manufactured under said approval which is in. all material respects the same as an approved device shall be deemed to be in ~onformity with the regulations established pursuant to this section. (3) The manufacturer of an approved device shall maintain records and pro- vide information and reports as the Secretaries deem appropriate and shall per- ~nit any authorized Federal employee to have access to and copy such records ~luring business hours. All information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, ~ither Secretary of his representatives pursuant to this subsection which con- tains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of ritle 18 of the United States Code shall be considered confidential for the pur- pose of that section, except that such information may be disclosed to other Dfficers or employees concerned with carrying out this section. RESPONSIBILiTY FOR CLEANUP IN OIL POLLUTION SITUATIONS Mr. SULLIVAN. In this legislation, who would have the ultimate re- ~ponsibility for the operation of the cleanup, the situation that was drought up outside of the San Juan Harbor? Admiral TRIMBLE. The bills that deal with this question provide or give this authority to the Secretary of the Interior. Now, there are some complications that I am glad to have the oppor- ;unity to explain, because it is not quite as clearcut as it would seem from this. In other words, let's take the Ocean Eagle casualty which occurred it the entrance to San Juan Harbor. It started out as a rescue case First. We rescued the crew as the vessel broke in half and oil started pouring forth from the bow and stern sections. Now, we have not only an oil pollution problem, but we have a Dort safety problem; possible hazard to a port which we have respon- ;ibility for separately. At this point, of course, it becomes a little difficult to distinguish )etween the oil cleanup responsibilty and the port safety queston. Mr. SULLIVAN. In other words, you think this legislation would re- luire further clarification to define what your responsibility should e in a practical manner, such as you just state? Admiral TRIMBLE. Mr. Sullivan, I do feel that any legislation that ~omes forth should provide clearcut responsibility in the various cir- ~umstances that might arise. Normally, if we are not dealing with a port safety problem, it. would e very simple. The Secretary of the Interior is in charge of tl1e opera- ion. Should he want to contract with available industrial firms or itihze the services of any salvage company, that is one that has facil- ties, that would be up to him. He could utilize the Coast Guard facil- ties if he wanted to. But, when we have an oil spill involving a port, nside of a port, and we have had a number of these, we had one up Ii New York harbor that involved a lot of gasoline, and there is an rnmediate port safety problem as well as a cleanup problem, it will e necessary for Interior and the Department of Transportation to PAGENO="0100" 92 work out some agreement as* to the responsibilities, as I ~eo it, in a port safety question Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask your permi~i~n, would it be possible for you to supply the committee with a brief of some language about t~n additional amendment to this bill along the lines we have been discussing? Admiral TRIMBLE. We will be glad to attempt to do that. This is a very complicated subject, and I am ncit prepared today to offer any language; but we certainly will study it and will be glad to work with your staff. Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR HR. 15906 AND S. 2760 REGARDING OIL CLEANUP AUTHORITY Sec. 20(i) (1) The owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation from which oil is discharged into the navigable waters of the United States or the Contiguous' Zone shall notify the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating and shall immediately remove the discharged oil from any waters and shorelines where it may be found, act to minimize and mitigate damage, prevent additional or continuing oil discharge, and preclude other adverse effects as become apparent, in accordance with regulations pre- scribed under this section and as directed by competent authority. If a dis- charge of oil is the result of a collision between vessels the owner or operator of each vessel involved shall comply with the foregoing. If an owner or operator fails to act or if the source of an oil discharge is not determinable, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may remove or arrange for removal of the oil and the owner or operator and, as appropriate, the vessel or shore installation responsible for the discharge, except that resulting from an Act of God, shall be liable, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the United States, in addition to any penalties prescribed in this section, for the costs to the United States of any Federal action taken pursuant to this subsection. Clearance of a vessel liable for such costs from the United States may be withheld until the costs are paid or until a satisfactory bond or other surety is posted. (2) In carrying out the provisions of this subsection and whenever as a result of marine disaster there is created a substantial threat or menact to the public welfare because of potential discharge of large quantities of oil, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may: (i) perform any and all acts necessary to remove the oil or eliminate the threat or menace; (ii) utilize by agreement with or without reimbursement personnel and facili- ties of other Federal agencies; (iii) coordinate and direct all public and private effort directed at oil removal or elimination of the threat or menace; (iv) under emergency summarily destroy or remove wrecks, debris, and other matter which be determines substantially contributes to continuing oil discharge or the threat or menace by whatever means are available to him, or made avail~ able to him, without regard to the laws governing employment of personnel or the expenditure of appropriated funds. (3) In carrying out the provisions of this subsection and to prevent detri- mental ecological impact or other significant deleterious effect on public health and welfare, no person, including any Federal agency, engaged in any oil removal or related effort shall use or direct the use of any chemical, compound, or sub- stance upon or in the navigable waters of the United States or in the Contiguous Zone which has been prohibited by the Secretary by regulation, or otherwise. Additionally, in line 23, page 9, delete "Secretary" and substitute therefore "United States." Mr. McEwEN. Admiral Trimble, I would say, sir, that we have had incidents of oil spillages in the St. Lawrence Seaway. I think all of us in that area, including this Congressman, know where the U.S. Coast Guard is. They know that the cutter is stationed nearby, and I know you are the ones we would c~all in a situation like that. PAGENO="0101" 93 Without asking you now to comment on it, I would say, as one mem- ber of this committee, I would feel very happy if the responsibility, over all, would rest with the U.S. Coast Guard. I make that not as a criticism of the Interior Department. I know that the U.S. Coast Guard is in those waters, and as you pointed out, where port safety is involved,the Coast Guard has a clear-cut respon- sibility and, of course, I a4ssurne, if it is a hazard to navigation, you have the; responsibility to immediately take action. And in view of what appear to be the clear~cut responsibilities of the Coast Guard now, it would seem to me that you gentlemen are prepared to accept any additional responsibility, dealing with a fleet.. It would be feasible and clear cut to place all the responsibility in this area with one agency of the Government. I am pleased our counsel, Mr. Sullivan, made the request he did, and if you can comply with it, Mr. Chairman, I hope that Admiral Trimble and his people in the Coast Guard will furnish us with some- thing along this line, what you are prepared to do to carry out this type of mission. Admiral TRIMBLE. Thank you, Mr. McEwen. I would like to add tOm~ comments that I certainly am not sug- gesting that this is nOt a team problem. I think the current. incident of pollution on the Waikiki Beach at Honolulu is a good example. For example, right now a Coast Guard boat is carrying a team around, trying to deterpiine the cause of the oil spill on Waikiki Beach out at Honolulu. We have a representative of FWPCA, we have a Coast Guard representative, we have one from the State and local authorities that are in this team trying to determine the cause. There is concurrently a cleanup operation going on by the local authorities on the beach. The last report I had was the wind was changing, and it looked like it would blow the contamination away from the beach aiid recrea- tion bathing had been resumed. Most of the cleanup had been accom- plished when we left my office this noon. Let me emphasize that it is `a team. There is a team problem here. It it not simply one agency, the Coast Guard, doing something, because Interior has specialists to determine the best way of handling and coping with a spill, the Department of Interior also has scientists and they have research funds to study the problem; even in the San Juan spill this was a team, a multmgency approach dealing with the problem. The v'arious contingency plans the Coast Guard evolved after the Torrey Caiiyon affairs we have them for all the major ports, every one of th~m include the other interested Government agencies. The communications network we use, is generally operated by the `Coast Guard. The plans have representatives of the Corps of Engineers, the local port authorities, and the States and industry. Industry plays a very' important part in this and they have been very `interested in providing facilities, providing technical know-how and being right on the scene to help out as far as coping with these are concerned. PAGENO="0102" 94 Mr. MCCARTHY. But in each of those cases you cite, it is a team approach. Which of the various agencies that you have mentioned is the coordinator? Admiral TRIMBLE. Well, at the moment, because of the particular facilities that we have spread geographically around the country, and many of our possessions, normally the Coast Guard happens to be on the scene. We have the presence. We have rescue facilitiies `at different places. We have boats. we have helicopters~, so it is somewhat logical that it devolves upon the Coast Guard; but in each case we do notify our counterpart in FWPCA, so we can start working together on it. Mr. MCCARTHY. You also have the communications network that some of the agencies do not have. Admiral TRIMBLE. We do have a very complete, modern communi- cations network, yes, sir. HAWAII OIL SPILL Mr. MCCARTHY. Have you found out what caused the oil problem in Hawaii? Admiral TRIMBLE. At the moment, the exact cause is not known, sir. There is an indication that the State attempted to remove anoil source near the entrance to the harbor. There is -some indication of this happening. ` Now, we have surveyed the area by plane and by boat. We have found numerous oil slicks off Waikiki Beach and off the harbor. Just before we came here at noon, there was also a fairly large oil spill sighted in the harbor itself. The State representatives thought this might have come from a storm sewer discharge. That is a separate one from the one that fouled up Waikiki Beach. Mr. MCCARTHY. You do not know where the one that fouled Waikiki Beach came from? Admiral TRIMBLE. No, apparently state authorities had tried to re- move an oil source near the entrance to the harbor. It appears this probably is the source. Mr. MCCARTHY. Stationary shore source? Admiral TRIMBLE. No, underwater. It was near the entrance to the harbor. They had just indicated they had t:ried to remove some source. We have had Navy divers look at several other possible sources of leaks off the Waikiki Beach in the last day or so. There was some in- dication that-something was coming from underwater, oil leakage that is; we have investigated that and it does not appear to be the source. Mr. MCCARTHY. ~This `one may be coming from a sunken ship, is that what you are saying? Admiral TRIMBLE. Well, that is what it sounded like. There was no indication of the source that the State was trying to remove. Mr. MCCARThY. Would that be where the ships sunk at Pearl Har- bor would be? Admiral TuMBLE. No, this was near the entrance to the harbor, sir. It is possible, but we were not aware of any' removal program, so I really doubt that it was thought to be one of those ships, sir. By tomorrow we may have some more information on this for you. PAGENO="0103" 95 RESPECTIVE ROLES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES IN OIL POLLUTION SITUATIONS Mr. MCCARTHY. It just seems to me, from my own experience, too, in Buffalo, that the Coast Guard is really a key agency in this. You do have the communications, the experience, the facilities. I do think it should be spelled out, if you can possibly do it, because the way it is now it is rather ambiguous. Admiral TRIMBLE. Well, the proposals ih the bills before you do place the responsibility specifically in the Department of Interior, so the bill does attempt to spell out the responsibility. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman, on that point, you have seen a copy of H.R. 15906? Admiral THIMBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. On page 5, sir, paragraph (g), as I read it, it says this section will be enforced by the Interior Department and the Secre- tary of the Department under which the Coast Guard is then operating. Apparently the author of the bill anticipates the Coast Guard might be moved around at some future time. But it places, a~s I read it here, the enforcement in the Secretary under which t~ie Coast Guard is operat- ing, and the Secretary:of the Interior,~with or without agreer~ient of law ~ other Federal agencies, et cetera, etcetera, and it seems to be a joint responsibility. Admiral TRIMBLE. The responsibility is placed in the Secretary of the Interior and he may delegate any pa~'t of this responsibility to the Department in which the Coast Guard ~s operating. Mr. MCEWEN. The wording: Shall be enforced by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard Is under. Admiral TRIMBLE. That only deals with the enforcement. That is not the agreement. The enforcement responsibility is in the Secretary, Department of Transportation, after consultation with the Secretary of Interior. There is no question about that. Mr. MCEWEN. Again, Admiral, the language, you are quite right, it has to do with enforcement, not the cleanup, but th~ language Gf .tha~ as 1 read it, is joint. 1t does not place it in either the Secretary of~ Interior or Secretary of Transportation. It says: Shall be enforced by the Secretary of Interior and by the Department under which the Coast Gmtrd Is operated. Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. Is it your understanding, however, that that enforce- ment was to be carried out by the Secretary of Interior in thls case, or the Secretary of Transportation? Admiral TRIMBLE. In this particular section you are referring to, it is joint. Mr. MCEwEN. It is joint? Admiral TRTMBLE. Yes, sir; if you look on paUe 7 under subsection (j), first, the Secretary, that means Secretary of Interior, shall issue regulations in consultation with the Secretary of the Department. in which the Coast Guard is operating, covering conservation objectives and standards in removing oil discharge in the contiguous zone. Then PAGENO="0104" 96 it says the Secretary of the Department in which tie Qoast Guard i operating shall issue regulations in consultation with the Secretar~ of Interior, designed to implement the regulations. issued by th Secretary. . . . . That is the part where the euforç~ement responsibility relating t our aspect .is placed in the. Secretary ;of Transportation. The cleai~ui aspects are dealt with on page 6.under subsection (i), and that explain what the Secretary of Intei~ior may do. Mr. M0E~TEN. Now, as I read it it indicates that if the owner 0 the vessel does not remove the. discharged oil in accordance with th regulations, then the Secretary-and that is the See~etary of Interior- may remove such oil. So apparently there the cleanup function i vested in the Secretary of Interior. Admiral ThIMBLE. That is right. At the bottom of the page, page the Secretary of Interior may utilize the services of other facilitie or other agencies. Mr. MCEWEN. Other Federal agencies; right. Well, the thought occurs to me, Admiral, that there could well b a situation where, the Coast Guard would be obliged to be on the .scen because a vessel, such as the Ocean Eagle in the San Juan, P.R., ha.rbo situation, needed. Coast Guard assistance before there was any mci dence of spillage. There was, No. 1, a.s I understand your testimon: in that case, a rescue mission. The Coast Guard had to remove th crew, and then there was a question. of hazard to port safety, due ti the oil that you had to deal wi~i. In other words, you are ah~ady on t.he scene and functioning befor the spillage occurred. That is why I hope most of yQur thougl~ts 01 the capability of the Coast Guard take on that operation. Admiral TRIMBLE. We are quite intimately concerned with thi problem and in a number of different asi:ects, as was explained in m: statement. We ar~ involved in the placement of aid~ to navigation as far is establishing channels are concerned. We are involved ~vith the port safety. We are involved with th regulations as far as merchant vessel safety, and, further, we go bad to the design of the vessels themselves. We even have to approve th plan for designof a tanker or other vessel, and the safety equipmen thereon. Thi~ has to do with marithue safety. ~We alsO license the crew and the officers. We inspect the ship, th safety appliances. We are involved with the shipboard operation from A to. Z~ almost. This is just another reason why we are so close o~i the scene ii maritime incidents. Mr. MOEWEN. Admiral, this thought occurs to my mind: you men tioned the licensing of personnel. In most instances, as in the case 0 San Juan, you are dealing with a ship `whose licensed personnel. ma- hold American licenses. As one who has worked with pilots, 1 kno~ how they value that mariner's ticket they have. I have heard them taT] about it, and that if anything happens, they are eirer~mindful that th Coast Guard ha.s power over their license. A lot depends on the revoca tion of that license, for it's their ~ivelihood. I can see that with license personnel they may have, the greatest respect for the Department o Interior or any other agency of the Federa.i Government, but the- PAGENO="0105" 97 till do not like to bet with a jocl~ey ma situ~titht You are directly )a.s~ing on their quaii~ea~ions and reviewing their actions. I think it ~ives you a standing by virtme of yQur other `func~ions, that no one else ias, in that you are `deaiin~ ~ith the person~el .~nd I think this is ;ornething the committee will consider. `. `~ Admiral TRIMBLE. Many of the, oil s~iil~ are ~elated' to a marine ~asualty, and if it occurs in our waters or involves T5.S.-flag ships, we investigate the casualty and attempt to det~rmine, or investigate the ~ause. If it is a major casualty, the NatiOnal Transportation Safety Board makes a final determination as to cause. The incident down in San Juan happened in territorial waters, and we are investigating that casualty now to. attempt to find the facts which will lead to a determination of the cause. It' just happens that this is a Liberia,n vessel with a Liberian crew, ~o an additional complication that the Coast Guard is involved within bhe international aspects of operation of vessels in our waters and harbors. Mr. MCEwEN. That vessel at San Juan,, I am not familiar with that. Do they have harbor pilotage there? S Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, they do have harbor pilotage in San Juan. The vessel came into port, and the pilot came out to theet it. The ship was in the process of picking up the pilot whe~a this happened. The pilot did get on board just before the incidenttook place. I am not trying to say that he was at fault, because the ship was already in a situation, apparently, that was* dangerous with respect to the channel, considering the dra~ft of the vessel. Mr. MCEWEN. He got there just in time.' Admiral TRIMBLE. Just in time, with a minute `or two' to `spare, to get off the ship when it happened, and when `she; started breaking in two. He was part of the crewrescued. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you,'Mr. Chairn~an.", Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Admiral. S I would like to add a word of praise about' the Coa~t' Guard, which I think has a brilliant record in the history of o~ country and cer tainly in this field of preserving o~-watei~s, arid `~a~ that mine i~ a Coast Guard family. I have a brother-in-lawwho is ~ wa~rrant o~cer with the Coast Guard, now serving in Sp,ain, where he is working ~n a `loran st*at~;on. S We have a very high regard for the Coa~t Oi~rd. We want to thank you for coming here today, and we look forward to hearing from you on spelling out the authority in this matter,, `to clean it up. S FEDERAL PREEMPTION or VESSEL rOLLUTION CONTROL ~`IELD Admiral TRIMBLE. Mr.. Chairman, if I may, there is one' thing I would like to add by way of suggestion. I do not notice in any of the bill's, as far as waste from watercraft, that there is a preemption pro- vided for on the part of the Federal Gdi~ernncient with respect to StatCactions. ` S -` , ` S , S I am thinking of vessels. Let ustake,*to `give you an example of the problem, a vessel in interstate commerce or even a pleasure boat, a PAGENO="0106" 98 yacht that goes from one State to another. The problem is trying to comply with different standards in different States. I think that there should be a specific provision here that a Federal regulation that ajplies to a vessel, for example, would preempt any regulation of individual States, otherwise we would have a real prob- lem in vessels traveling from State to State. MCCARTHY. Could you supply language for the record along that line? Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir, we will be glad to. (The information to be supplied follows:) DRAFT LANGUAGE TO ESTABLISH FEDERAL PREEMPTION FOR VESSEL STANDARDS AN!) REQUIREMENTS PROMULGATED UNDER H.R. 15906 "Sec. 20(k) Whenever a Federal standard or requirement established by regulation under this section is in effect, no State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority either to establish or continue In effect, with respect to any vessel or associated equipment, any standard or requirement which is not identical to the Federal standard or requirement. The Secretary and the Secre- tary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, with respect to the scope of their respective regulatory authority established by this section, may waive the applicability of this subsection where exceptional circumstances existing within a State warrant the establishment by that State of a standard or requirement more stringent than the Federal standard or requirement." The substance could be accomplished similarly in S. 2760 and in H.R. 16207 (S. 2525) and similar bills. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF H.R. 15906 AND S. 2760 Mr. MCEWEN. Is Commander DeWoif your legal officer? Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. In reviewing the things you are going to submit, will you look at that paragraph on page 5. I am a little confused as to what that means, where it says "anyone authorized by the Secre- tary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating will enforce the provisions of this section, may board and inspect any ves- sel with or without a warrant, arrest any person who violates the pro- visions of this section or any regulation issued thereunder in his pres- ence or view" and it spells out that the arrest may be made with or without a warrant, where the violation occurs in the presence or view of the arresting officer; but I do not understand, what about where the incident occurs not in the presence or view of an officer of the Coast Guard? It leaves me a little bit confused on your provision to enforce it. Commander DEWOLF. The implications there, if it happens without his presence or view, then a warrant would be required for an arrest. Mr. MCEWEN. That language starting out "with or without a war- rant"-let me yield to Mr. Sullivan, our counsel. Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you not think that the situation where you de- ,scribe the clarifying language will clearly spell this out in this legislation? Commander DEWOLF. Well, as the language is written, counselor, it indicates, whether or not he has a warrant, he may arrest if the violation occurs in his presence or view. PAGENO="0107" 99 If it has not occurred in his presence or view, then presumably he would have to have a warrant. Mr. SULLIVAN. You think that language is satisfactory and does not need any further clarification? Commander DEWor1r. This language, incidentally, is contained in other legislation which gives authority to the Coast Guard for en- forcement of other maritime law. And it is long-standing, has been long in existence. For that reason I do not think it really presents any problem. Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. Mr. MCEWEN. There is one other thing, Commander DeWoIf, the section (e) that concludes on page 5, that says "such penalties which may be recovered by action in the district court of the United States, or any district within which the vessel may be found." On that section (e) the action lies in any district court where the vessel may be found; and paragraph (h) at the bottom of page 5, where it says "in the case of one action arising under this section, Samoa and Hawaii, the same thing." This, it seems to me, is incon- sistent, that if we are going to have the action lie in any district court where the vessel may be found, and I would agree with that, then you should have the same provisions for incidents involving the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Samoa. Comm~ndèr DRWOLF. I quite agree. That provision in subsection (e), of course, is merely a reiteration of what iS already contained in the procedural rule. There is an inconsistency in subsection (h) by limiting the action to Guam or the Virgin Islands, as the case may be. There would, it seems to me, be no reason for that limitation. Mr. MCEWEN. You would agree, then? Commander DEWOLF. That the violation could occur in the Pacific and the vessel could come into San Francisco. Mr. MOEWEN. Why? Is it because in almost everything that in- volves admiralty matters, it follows the vessel? Commander T)i~WoLF. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if we could have some suggested language for amending that also, Admiral Trimble? Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Admiral. (The information requested follows:) DRAFT LANGUAGE To REMOVE THE LIMITATION IN H.R. 15906 THAT ACTIONS Anis- ING OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES BE BROUGHT IN DISTRICT COURTS WHERE THE ACTIONS ARISE RATHER THAN WHERE AN OFFEEDING VESSEL MAY BE FOUND Delete the proposed subsection 20(h) beginning on line 21, page 5. Revise the last sentence of proposed subsection 20(e) beginning at line 1, page 5, to read: "Such penalty shall constitute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered by action in rem in the district court having juridiction." The result could be accomplished similarly in S. 2760. Mr. Chairman, did you have a question? Mr. BLATNIK. I have no questions. I want to apologize to the admiral and his staff for being absent. I had a delegation of eight upstairs. We appreciate your appearing here and standing by PAGENO="0108" 100 patiently all day. long for the convenience of the committee ~nd to withstand some interrogation, which was much longer than w~ had expected. . . We are going to need a lot mare technical help and guidance and advice, and we will keep in touch with you directly; and if `you will assign some of your technical people, that would be helpful. We do have a big wad here in the long series of bills, with the different aspects of the problem, and oil particularly is a tremendously complicated and apparently getting to be worse Of a problem, and it has drawn a lot of worldwide attention. It frightens people bec~use they are so helpless when a. big spill does take place. Finally, I may want to say this, that there are those of us from the Great Lakes region who have been familiar with the work of the Coast Guard for many, many years, and the thing that'has always impressed me is, I think the Coast Guard is sort of the unsung hero, quiet, modest and efficient; and I mean that sincerely. You really carry your job. never look `for any accolades or publicity and sometimes, it is long overdue, but I want to express my apprecia- tion. I was not here earlier. It was something beyond my control. We shall keep in contact with you, and we shall not only `seek your help but shall appreciate your counsel and `guidance on this very difficult problem. .` . ` `. I thank all of you gentlemen for standingby all day long. Mr. MOEWEN. That w:ould.appear to cover the Great Lakes, for.you have heard from Mr. McCarthy and myself, it is Obvious `the esteem in which the Coast Guard is held.' ` Admiral TRIMBLE. Thank you; sir. . Mr. MCCARTHY. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dan Rostenkowski. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION STATEMENT OP HON. DAN.ROSTENXOWSKI,.A REPRESENTATIVL IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. R.OSTENKOWSKI. I appr~iate the opportunity of entering a~ state- ment on a subject which is so basic and so:vital to this country, to :you and to me, and to our sources of food, recreatiOn, and health. I want to take this opportunity fully to: support legislation. wihich will help protect our rivers and our lakes, our harbors and our coast- line. It is my understanding that these hearin~s are to be devoted prirnar ily to the areas of oil pollution and vessel pollution. My interest in, the area of water pollution has become great in the last year because, for the flu St time, I had the problem thrust quarely at me n~ the crisis which developed in L'tke Michigan last summer At that time I made a st.udy of the. pending legislation, `spoke t~ the Army Corps of Engi- neers and observed the problems directly." : `: ` ~`. There was an oil slick on the lake which e~ter~ded.for. 60 or 70 miles. There were many t.heories about where it, came from, but. there :was i~othing on which any real degree of re~ponsibility coul4 be. placed. The whole area was in an uproar over the situation. T~he Ohi~ago Tribune ran an outstanding series on the pollutioh in the lake. The PAGENO="0109" 101 more. I. read, the more I realized that what was regarded seriously by only a few pe~ple not too long ago was one of the really dangerous threats to this country. If any emphasis on this problem was needed, that was supplied by the alewife dieoff which offended the olfactory senses and rendered the recreational beaches in Chicago a total loss. What. could be doPe about the problem? After considerable study it appears that causes of pollution'in our waters stem from discharge of untreated sewage from our cities, harmful chemical discharge from our factories, the discharge of oil from shore installations, boats and vessels, the introduct~pn of hig~hphusphatebearing detergents and the unrestricted discharge of raw sewage, trash, and garbage from boats and vessels. On October 26, 1967, I introduced H.IR. 13708 and H.R. 13709, in the hopes of blockin;g these sources of pollution. I naturally think my bills would prove effective in this area but I have no such pride of author- ship that I would not throw all my weight behind H.R. 15906 and H.R. 1.5907 in the respective areas of oil pollution and the :inerease and im- provement of secondary treatment plants. S. 2525 would prevent the discharge of.sewa~ge wastes from any ves- sel or class of vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. Virtually every craft ~nfioat these ~days is a contributor to pollution. The number of pleasure boats has re~tdied the staggering total of 8 million and the numbei~ of other vessels; from large liners to the small fishing boats which ply our waters, comes to about 150,000 annually. It is estimated that the discharge of all vessels in the United States for 1 day would equal the nntreated discharge from a city the size of Buffalo or Cincinnati. This threat from the myriad pleasure boats and other vessels has been recognized right in the locality of our Nation's Capital. In the Chesapeake Bay there are areas where oystermen are not permitted to dredge because the fecal matter from boat concentration has been ab- sorbed into the oyster beds and affords a clear and present danger of hepatitis to any unsuspecting soul who might be served six oysters on the half shell from such source. The answer to boat and vessel pollution is i4~ the attachment of devices which contain for proper disposal all types of untreated sew- age. There is no doubt that there will be much opposition to the attach- ment of such devices on existing vessels and the incorporation of these in the building of new vessels, but the conclusion that they are neces- sary is inescapable. Probably the most significant theory about sewage from recrea- tional boats is nOt only their increasing numbers but also their high degree of mobility. The high speeds, the ease of trailer boats, and our marvelous network of highways lets every area of this country open to this kind of pollution. If it cannot be controlled federally, it will not be effectively controlled at all. In conclusion, I urge expeditious action on all bills which will effec- tively stop the prime causes of pollution. While my own immediate problem is Lake Michigan, I think decisive action by Congress now is necessary to set the gears of correction in motion. While the prob- lem of clearing up a river or a tidal area is within the scope of possi- bility, it is rather widely believed that once a lake becomes polluted, it is PAGENO="0110" 102 irretrievably lost. I am hopeful that this belief is not accurate and that ways and means will be found to restore the dissolved oxygen not only to the waters of Lake Michigan but also to the now dying Lake Erie. Again let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that you can count on my vote and my support on this vital matter. Mr. MCCARTHY. Our next witness is Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., rep- resenting the Boating Industry Association. We are always delighted to have you here, Tom. STATEMENT OP THOMAS HALE BOGc+S, JE., BOATING INDUSTRY ASSOGIATION Mr. BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Boating Industry Association is an association representing most of the pleasure craft manufacturers and manufacturers of ac- cessory equipment. I have here a prepared statement which I would just like to submit for the record. We also have five exhibits attached to the statement, one of which, exhibit A, is much too long, and the rest I would like to offer for the record. Mr. 1~1CCARTHY. Without objection, your full statement and the exhibits will be put into the record at this point. (Prepared statement and exhibits follow:) STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. BOGGS, BOAT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ON VESSEL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Thomas H. Boggs, Jr. I am the Washington counsel of the Boating Industry Association (BIA), 333 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. The BIA is a non-profit national trade association representing 375 manufacturers of all kinds of pleasure boating equipment and providing many services of an educational and in informative nature to the entire industry and the boating public. In addition, the BIA works directly with boat owners in all parts of the country through its two consumer divisions, the Outboard Boating Club of America, serving members of affiliated boating clubs, and the Boat Owners Council of America serving individual boat owners. Boaters have observed first hand more of the damages of pollution and litter- ing of more of this country's waters than any other group of persons. Few groups have a bigger stake in clean water than boaters. Recognizing the potential Seriousness of problems caused by pollution the industry took positive steps al- most 10 years ago to encourage manufacturers to provide adequate treatment or retention devices. Every manufacturer of boats with toilet facilities was asked to provide adequate space so that a sewage `treatment or retaining type device could be conveniently installed. Seven years ago, we published a standard with mini- mum space requirements for marine toilets in our annual Engineering Manual of Recommended Practices. (Exhibit A.) Manufacturers have responded affirma- tively to these recommendations. In addition, the BIA has worked closely with official and technical agencies in developing more precise data on the character and extent `of pollution from watercraft and the most effective methods for treating effluent from vessels. In 1957. the Association developed and supported a model anti-pollution and anti- litter law which has been adopted, in whole or in part, in many states. And the Association has kept the industry well-informed on any new developments in this field to insure that their products are designed and manufactured in ac- cordance with the most up-to-date technical information on the subject of sewage treatment. Four years ago the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators appointed a Pollution Committee to investigate how much pollution boaters PAGENO="0111" 103 were in fact contributing to our nation's waterways. After an exhaustive nation- wide survey, the NASBLA Pollution Committee concluded that pollution from recreational boats was negligible in virtually all waters. A few specific con- gested mooring areas in stagnant waters. were the only exceptions. The ~Jommit- tee further found that less than 10% of the nation's recreational fleet is equipped with marine toilets. Although pollution from pleasure craft was not found to be a problem, the Committee realized it could become one in some areas as boating increased, and that the lack of a problem would not necessarily forestall `a `host of non-uniform legislative "solutions." As a result, the Committee recommended, and NASBLA adopted, a Model Act on Sewage Disposal and Littering from Vessels as `a guide for jurisdictions which felt regulation necessary. (See Exhibit B.) The recom- mended Model Act has since been followed by several key boating states, includ- ing New York, Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina, and more states are expected to follow suit very soon. The NASBLA Act prohibits untreated sewage discharges into the waters, but allows toilet use with chemical treatment devices meeting certain effluent standards, incineration or holding tanks. Just what a recommended minimum treatment standard should be has been studied at length by the National Sani- tation Foundation of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This non-profit testing laboratory was assisted in this work by State and Federal health officers, the people who have the final say on acceptability of treatment devices in their respective jurisdictions. In May of 1966, at Ann Arbor, Michigan, the National Conference on Water- craft Waste Disposal was held under the sponsorship of the National Sanitation Foundation, in cooperation with the U.S. Public Health Service and the Ten- nessee Valley Authority. Its objective was to review effluent criteria recom- mended by the Interdepartmental Committee on Sewage and Waste Disposal from vessels (established by the Division of Environmental Engineering of the Public Health Service) as they apply to pleasure craft. Another objective was the establishment of criteria for evaluating the performance of devices designed to treat wastes and render them acceptable for discharge from pleasure craft in accordance with the effluent criteria just mentioned. This Conference was participated in by competent authorities representing state and federal Public Health agencies, state and federal Water Pollution Control bodies, marine and yachting organizations, and a number of manu- facturers of devices that treat, retain or otherwise manage sewage produced in watercraft. It was from that conference that the Joint Committee for Watercraft Waste Disposal Devices was formed. That Committee and its sub-committees evolved the present National Sanitation Foundation Standard. (Exhibit C.) Endorsement of the NASBLA Model Act, implemented by the Sanitation Foun- dation's uniform performance standards for watercraft sewage treatment devices, has come from many quarters. In addition to the Outboard Boating Club of America, the National Boating Federation, a national organization of state boating clubs, is in favor of the approach. So is the National Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. Regrettably, this apparently is not the approach taken to date by the Federal Government. Two study reports of vessel discharges were recently prepared by the Secretary of the Interior through the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration-one for the Congress and one for the President. Boaters believe the data presented and the recommendations made in these studies are highly unrealistic. For example, the "studies" say that 1.3 million of the 8 million motorboats, sailboats, canoes and rowboats in the country are equipped with marine toilets. That's one out of every six boats! Yet, a recent survey asking all marine toilet manufacturers how many units they had produced since they were in business indicated total production of all marine toilet manufacturers combined to be only 500,000 to 700,000 units. Even if every unit were still in use, which is highly improbable, total production over the years has amounted to only half of what the FWPCA report claims are in use. Clearly, the FWPCA researchers did not consult the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, or the NASBLA Pollution Committee, or even knowledgeable boatmen when they came up with the breakdowns on the num- ber and types of recreational craft equipped with marine toilets. The report says 90 percent of all inboard boats, 80 percent of all outboard boats over 16.5 feet in length and 50 percent of all sailboats without auxiliary power have toilets. For 1966, marine industry sales records show that 81 percent of nil sailboats sold without auxiliary power were 15 feet or under, and about one third of these PAGENO="0112" 104 were the surf-board-with-a-sail type. Yet, according to the FWPCA report, 50 percent of these sailboats `under 15 feet in length have toilets. If this were the case, boaters should woi~ry more abcnIt indecent exposure than pollution. In view of the inaccuracy of the F1WPCA's find:ings concerning the magnitude of diseharge~ from pleasure crafts we would suggest that closer liaison with boat- ing groups should be ffeveloj~ed `where none has existed. As a matter of fact, the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators suggested just that by resolution at their. annual, meeting in San Francisco last Nevember. (Ex- hibitD.) Grantia~ that. `reasontible re,~u1ation of discharges from pleasure craft in some areas is desirable, although an infinitesimal aslpect of the total pollution problem, the most effective solution from the boater's standpoint would be adoption of the NASBLA Model Act `by all states-covering both waters of exclusive state juris~ diction and Waters of cOncurre~t ut'ate'-federal jurisdiction. How can we get all states to ~lo this on a uniform and redi~rocal basis? Federal legislation setting guidelines which the states will be obliged to fol- low is necessary to secure uniformity. There is precedent for this in the Federal Boating Act of 1958, under which to date 47 states have complied with Federal standards in exchange for the privilege of numbering pleasure craft on all waters within their territorial limits. In the same manner, NASBLA's Model Act on waste discharge from boats `might be made Federal low. Whether state or Fed- erally administered, boaters would have only one basic law governing them in pollution and littering matters. This answer seems very reasonable, logical, work- able and in accord with various Federal water quality control laws which set guidelines, but leave primary responsibility for administration and enforcement to the states. Initially, ~we `feel that separate trea'tmen't of :recreational and commercial or military craft should be given, either in separate sections, of one bill or by two altogether `separate bills. `Recreational `vessels and commercial or military vessels have little in common in terms of size, number of persons aboard, fre- quency and `duration of use, space available ~o:r treatment facilities or waters traveled. Qonslderations of pollution control necessarily should be quite differ- ent for recreational vessels and commercial vessels. For example, and most importantly, comnreicial craft are used almost ex- clusively upon the navigable waters of the United States-the major rivers, Great Lakes and coastal waters. Therefore, `they `can be effectively covered by a Federal pollution control `act. `On `the `other hand, while some recreational craft are used on navigable waters, a `substantial proportion are used only on intrastate waters under exclusive State jurisdiction. A Federal vessel pollution act therefore only would go part-way toward covering recreational vessel use since it could apply `only to ~Federal navigable waters. Stating it from the boat- man's point of view, a ~ederal act would still leave the field open for state laws applicable to intrastate Waters whi'ch could be lion-uniform and even conflicting both between states and even within a state. `Indeed, this conflict of vessel pollution laws `prevails in some areas of the country right now. Such a con- fusing montage of non-uniform vessel pollution control laws cannot hut ereats chaos and hardship for boatmen and enforcement pel~sonnel alike, and contribute little toward control of pollution. The solution, we suggest, is an act which will cover not only recreational vessel pollution control on navigable waters, but which would provide incentive to the states to adopt like measures for intrastate waters. This will insure uni- formity between the states and between state and federal law. We respectful1~ submit this may be best accomplished by Fedei-al enactment of the essentials o~ what is known as the "Model Act on Sewage Disposal and Littering From Vessels' promulgated by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators referred to earlier. (Exhibit B.) Several states have already adopted the act or have very similar existing laws. This means a foundation for uniform laws already exists. Support for a Model Act could hardly be more widespread. The NASBLA Model Act has the endorsement of state boating officials, the boating industry and boating organizations, as well as sanitation and public health organization~~ As iii the Federal Boating Act of 1958, state administration of the program withir federal guidelines is the incentive for state participation. In addition, adoption of the essentials of the Model Act at the Federal level would still preserve and incorporate all of the necessary discretionary powei and regulatory authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Modjficatjoii~ of th NASBLA Model Act to achieve all of these goals is not difficult. We respectfufl~ PAGENO="0113" 105 submit a draft proposal illustrating this approach to pollution control from recreational vessels. (Exhibit B.) Under the approach `ot the Model Act there is envisioned the development of standards l~or sewage `dlschai~gOs to be promulgated by the Secretary. However, the Secretary is instructed to consult with other appropriate governmental agencies and private groups. It would be a mistake, in our opinion, to give any Federal agency absolute authority to set `standards or to approve devices to control `waste disposal from watercraft. There *~hiis to be close `collaboration between the Federal govern- ment and state and local agencies responsible for water pollution control, pub- lic health, and boating la~v enforcement. Any rules or regulations established by Washington without such collaboration could result in Federal-State con- flicts of law that would make matters worse for boaters, not only from state to state but when proceeding froni state to Federal waters within the boundaries of the same state. This is a real danger. We submit it can be overcome by providing proper ~`uidelln'es in the legislation, or at least by building a substan- tial legislative history whiCh will afford no possible future misleading of CongresSional intent. If the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration had consulted and coll~boratOd with state boating law administrators when they were investigat- ing pollution from recreationanl watercraft, we believe they would have reached more `realistic conclusions in the report they sent to Congress. flowerer, in Our `concern about `the absolute necessity for uniformity, we should not overld~k the Thc~t that, to be `truly effeCtive, regulations also must be realistic. Some of the FWPOA recommendations have to date ignored this principle. A law which meets a specific problem in one area may be totally in- effective in andth~r area. In fact, It may. even `help to magnify the problem. If it is cOmpletely impractiCal or imposSible to comply with a particular regula- tirni1 it will *be circumvented. Ati~1 the result of such circumventions often creates new and greater problems and an overall disrespect for the law. This is especially true in regard to anti-pollution regulations. I thank you for `this opportunity to testify on this matter of great importance *to us all. 1 shall be `happy `to attempt to answer any questions you may have. Ex:filnrr ~B-R'EPORT OF `rItE POLLIYPION STUDY COMMITTEE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ol' `S~rAm `BOATING LAW ADMINISTRATORS At the Oklahoma City meeting of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, held November `18-20, 19(33, a Committee was appointed to develop a `report on `thCnature and extent of pollution o'f the waters of the T,Tnited States by recreational `~vatercraft and to make recommendations relative thereto. The following `were appointed as `menibers of this Committee: CHAIRMAN Keith Wilson, Director, Michigan State Waterways Commission MEMBERS Bernard W. Chalecki, Director, Connecticut Boating Safety Commission Peter J. Gannon, Chief, New ~ersey Bureau of Navigation John Grenoble, Member, Pennsylvania Fish Commission DuWayne Henrie, Boat Eegistration Section, Arizona Highway Department Milton Johnson, Director, Minnesota Boat & Water Safety Division James J. O'Brien, Director, New York Division of Motorboats Wilton Vaugh, Director, Massachusetts Division of Motorboats Ron Stone, Government Relations Department, Outboard Boating Club of America A review of information provided to the Committee by the Outboard Boating Club of America indicated a reason for the concern of the Association in this area. According to OBC, a total of 23 states have already adopted legislation con- trolling the discharge of sewage from recreational wastecraft on some or all of the individual state's waters, while many other states are considering such ac- tion. These totals include only states specifically legislating on this subject and do not include those states which may have passed laws dealing with trash, garbage, litter, etc. 94-376-68-------S PAGENO="0114" 106 The approach to this problem by the various states appears to be characterized by its individuality. In almost every instance, the boat pollution laws adopted by one state have little or no resemblance to those adopted by others, even in the case of neighboring states. Legislation involving varying and differing standards presents a considerable problem to the boatman who wishes to use his boat in a number of different states. Further complicating the picture is the propensity on the part of the individual states to select one type of anti-pollution device and to permit only its use in the particular state. Whether this is done deliberately or in ignorance of the existence of other equally suitable devices is not known. In any event, it further compli- cates the mobility of boats cruising on the waters of more than one state. STUDY METHOD In view of the extensive activities in the various., states on this subject, it was concluded by the Committee that there must be available a number of detailed studies analyzIng the extent of pollution of waters by recreational watercraft. Accordingly, the first action of the Committee was to attempt to gather together all such reports to permit an analysis of the nature and extent of pollution by ~eereational watereraft of the waters of the United States. An extensive survey of Federal agencies and of agencies of all of the states was made to locate such reports. This survey resulted in turning up only two reports that dealt in any manner with this problem. One report deals with the effect of pollution from houseboats in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon, and was prepared by the Oregon State Sanitary Authority. The second report, entitled "Survey of Marina and Watercraft Use in Relation to the Public Health Aspects", and jointly prepared by the Macomb County Health Department and Michigan Department of Health, dealt specifically with this problem. Because of the inability of the Committee to assess the nature and extent of pollution by recreational watercraft from only two reports made in widely separated parts of the country, an alternative method of assessing this problem was developed. This was by means of a questionnaire designed to elicit responses from boating, health, and recreation officials throughout the country from which conclusions could be drawn. The questionnaire is reproduced as Appendix A. The questionnaire was mailed to some 200 agencies in and out of government, both state and Federal, including public health departments, water pollution control boards or commissions, state boating law administrators, and virtually every Federal agency having any connection with waters used for recreation. A cover letter was provided with the questionnaire explaining the desire of the Committee to determine whether or not recreational boating is a significant cor~tributor to the water pollution problem, and requesting the assistance of the addressee. The returns were most gratifying and extremely helpful. More than 90 replies were received representing one or more agencies in almost every state. A list of the agencies responding and a summary and analysis of the replies received is reproduced as Appendix B. In the course of its study, the Committee collected a large number of news- paper clippings, magazine articles, and similar releases dealing with this subject. Many of these articles and clippings were especially helpful and presented in- sights into the over-all problem under study. Reproduction of these articles is not feasible, but several of those considered by the Committee are as follows: "Boat Sanitation" by Elbert Robberson, Yachting magazine, October, 1964; "Federal Policy Proposed on Disposal of Wastes", The Waterways Journal, July 11, 1964; and "Water Pollution from Boats", Boating Industry magazine, January, 1964. THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM The two reports dealing with pollution from houseboats and recreational water- craft were carefully reviewed by the Committee, because they were the only such reports located. An evaluation of the Oregon State Sanitary Authority Report on Houseboats is very well summarized by the conclusions stated therein and appearing on page 10 of the Report: "1. Domestic wastes including garbage from approximately 294 houseboats are dumped without treatment into the Willamette and Columbia River in the vicinity of Portland. This represents a population of between 500 and 1,000 PAGENO="0115" 107 persons. InclusiOn of boathouses, marinas, and other waterfront facilities would increase this number somewhat. "2. The measurable organic and chemical pollution load from houseboats in the Portland area is relatively small. compared to the total pollution load dis- charged from all sources. "3. Aesthetic nuisance conditions resulting from floating materials and health hazards from pathogenic organisms are considered to be the significant pollu- tional factors involved. "4. Collection and adequate disposal of houseboat wastes can be accomplished with reasonable application and modification of present equipment and tech- niques. "5. All but one or twO houseboats in the lower Willamette River are located at estabished marinas, in groups of 20 or more, which are within reasonable pumping distances of city of Portland sewers. "6. All but 10 or so houseboats in the Columbia River, adjacent to the Portland area, are in groups of 5 or more and subject to service by group facilities. "7. The requirement for treatment of wastes from houseboats and boathouses would make it possible to require installation of holding tanks on boats which could be pumped out for a nominal fee at practically any marina or moorage along the River. "8. It is believed that the collection and treatment of disposal of wastes from houseboats and boathouses could be required and enforced under existing state statutes and regulations." The significant conclusions are contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 where it is noted that the pollution load from the subject craft is relatively small compared to the total pollution load from all sources but that a nuisance and health hazard is created by floating wastes. The extent of the health hazard could undoubtedly be debated at considerable length, but the nuisance factor of floating waste ma- terials cannot be refuted. It is to be noted that no mention of trash, litter, or similar materials is made in the report. The Michigan Report resulted in conclusions very similar to those of the Oregon Report. The complete Summary and Conclusions can be found on page 23 of the Report and only selected paragraphs are reproduced here: "2. While the study was designed to obtain data relative to sewage pollution and sanitation conditions at marinas it was evident from statements made under the item `comments' on the questionnaire that there was great interest in water- craft safety (reckless driving, operator training, and operator licensing) and pollution other than sewage, i.e., trash, garbage, beer cans, wood or other floating debris. "3. The bacteriological sampling program showed that the water quality at six of the fourteen stations was extremely variable with high coliform concen- trations a significant percentage of the time. The eight remaining station showed a water quality quite variable but with coliform concentrations under 2500 for 05% of the time and no statistically significant difference detectable among these stations. The water quality at all stations was so variable that there was no statistically significant difference between any two stations or groups of stations. It was therefore not possible to measure the effect of pollution which might be contributed by a marina area into adjacent waters whether this be a stream or along the shoreline of a lake. "4. The stations which showed the highest chloride concentrations also showed some of the highest biochemical oxygen demand concentrations and in nearly the same order, namely (4, 5, 1, 2, 8, and 3) and (5, 4, 1, 2, 8, and 3) respectivoly. Concentrations actually decreased from a point on the river above the marinas to a point on the river below the marinas. The opposite trend would be antici- pated if pollution from marina areas which might be detected by a sampling program was contributing a significant pollution load to the receiving stream in relation to pollution already in the stream as measured by these parameters." The Report also concluded, through the process of deductive logic, that raw sewage was being discharged from recreational watercraft: "8. Observations of watercraft use while away from home port indicate the majority of one day trips cover from 31/3 to 7 hours on the average and it is evident that the head would be used under these extended use conditions. Since the high percentage of watercraft now in service are not equipped with holding tanks for sewage or macerator chlorinator devices, raw sewage is being dis- charged into the waters of the state from watercraft." PAGENO="0116" 108 The Michigan Report made no recommendation or reference to the nu~,sanci and/or health hazards created by floating wastes, nor was any reference ,mad~ to trash, garbage, `and litter, eren though the Report did mention that grea interest in these'matters was evidenced by the completed questionnaires gathere as part of tbe.Report. Both reports concurred in the fact that the pollution loa attributable to houseboats and re~eational watercraft was relatively small and in fact, could riot `even be measured in Michigan. Both also concluded that ray sewage was being deposited in the water from these craft. An analysis `~of `t!hu questionnaires returned to the Committee establishe the fact `that ~et~ few officials helieved that ])OllUtiOfl attributable to recre ational watercraft was much of a problem. The results of the questionilain are summarized in Appendix B' iut it should be noted that an average of al answers indicated that trash disposal from recreational watercraft was tb greatest problem,, followed by sewage, garbage and `waste, `in that order. The Committee also reviewed such information as was available to determin the number of recreational watercraft within their various registered fleet that actually possessed marine toilets. inasmuch as no statistical data `wa available on this subject, it was necessary to resort to estimates. It was con cluded, after careful analysis, that a maximum of 10% of the reereationa watercraft of any one state contained marine toilets and that the national avei' age would probably be less than 5%. Necessarily, the craft with marine toilet were the larger craft which are `generally located on coastal and Great `Lake, waters rather than.on small land-locked lakes. The general use patterns followed by owners of recreational watereraft wer also noted. It ;w-as found that only a very few watereraft were used for an~ extensive periods of time as dwellings but tha't, rather, most use was concentrate~ on weekends, holidays, and duiing summer vacations. Further, the boating sea son `of most states was found to be rather limited with the exception `of tb southern, southwestern, and western states. As an example, it was noted that i] Michigan the boating season is regarded as extending from May 1 to November 1 a period of six months, but that virtually all boating use was confined to th months of June through early October. Even if it was assumed that ll~% of a] recreational watercraft in Michigan contained marine toilets, that six person were regularly utilizing the watercraft, and that the average boat was in us in one form or another for 60 days per year, the extent of pollution attributabl to these craft would certainly have to be classified as `negligible. COMMITTEE FINDINGS From the two `health reports on this subject that were turned up `by it research, from the results of its questionnaire survey, and from the results o its own independent analysis, the only conclusion that can be reasonably `estal lished and `logically defended by this Committee is that pollution from recres t'ional watereraft is, at m~st, negligible. This pollution is so slight on the tota scale of pollutant sources that it is, at this time, unworthy of the considera'bl attention it `has `been given. To support the finding of this Committee as to the relative insigni'ficance o pollution from recreational watercraft, the Committee draws the reader's atter tion to a report on pollution of the Detroit River and Lake Erie, released by h U.S. Public Health Service on `May 8, 1965. The report resul'ted from a two an one-half year study by the Public Health Service of these waters and found tha pollution had reached a stage hazardous to human health, fish, wildlife an recreation. The report further Claimed that 1.6 million gallons of waste flow into the Detroit River annually, "one-third from municipalities and two-third from industries." The report charged that the Scott Paper Company alone dh charged wastes "equivalent in oxygen-consuming capacity to the untreated sets age from a population of over 800,000 persons." The report recommended "correcting the pollution from six municipalities 4 industrial establishments, and three Federal installations" and estimated th cost of remedial measures at $200 million. The subject is Still under debate i Michigan and promises to be actively discussed for many years before the situp tion outlined in the report is corrected, if ever. Based on the assessment by the Committee of the total boating population i this country with marine toilets, the patterns of use of such craft, and the totr days per year they are In operation, it is the opinion of this Committee that Ui PAGENO="0117" `109 ollution of the Detroit River which is caused by municipalities ~pad~ industries s of greater national concern than such pollution as is caused, to the nation's vaters by the total recreational boating fleet of this eeuntlr3i. But if the Committee is correct in its conclusion, then how can. the vigorous egislative activities in this field on the. state level' snd, flQw,, on the Federal .evel, be explained? The only explanation available `to the Committee is that mrbing `whatever pollution is attributable to recreational watercraft is con- ;idered to be reasonably easy, and is therefore a good p,lac.e for health o:fflcials wishing to make a start in' this field to begin. Further, because such legislation iffect~ a relatively small percentage of the population of a given state and because the goal of the legislation is admittedly for the good of all, it is difficult ~or those opposed' to such regulation or the form it takes' to gainany appreciable support for their position. - . . . If this has been the source of the consider~thle legislative, activity on this iubject in the past; `then' it is the inescapable conclusion of this Committee: that it will continue to `be in the future. That such legislation .can and often does impose incalculable and unnecessary hardships on recreational boat owners basn't deterred such efforts in the past and is unlikely to be of greater signif- icance in the future. . ` The Committee predicts that legislatiOn prohibiting entirely the use of a marine toilet on th'e waters of a given state `will continue to be passed in the future as it has in the past, even though no: action of any consequential nature is taken by the same state to clean up the heavy pollution of its waters caused by municipal and industrial wastes. What can and should recreational boat owners or the National Association of State `Boating Law Administrators do to `correct this situation? Should we ippose each and every attempt to curb su~ih pollution as can be attributed to recreational boating be'cause it is `of such Insignificance in the tatal pollution picture? Should we `advocate' a total program to cOrrect all pollution as an alternative to regulatiptis covering boating* alone? Or' should' the Association continually refer to this `report and its conClusiOns in hOpes that this alone will reduce 1egis~ative activUy in this field? : " , ` *` Reasonable though any of these courses' `of' action may ~appear, it is obvious that none of them will result in action favorable tO recreational . ,~oat owners. Legislating against pollution in any form is gaining popularity, and opposing anti-pollution legislation or regulations' Is comparable to opposing motherhood or the `American flag. The situation bás, `passe the point where reasonableness is a criteria so that concerted opposition~tIi such regulation by recreational boat owners or groups representing them, regardless of the facts in their favorr will accomplish nothing constructn e and might even result In the adoption of harsher regulations than wQuld otherwise be tlie'ca*' " ` ` The Committee believes that wl~at nfli~l ~be done b~ this Association and by other recreational boating interest grOixp~h~ `t~hC eonntty is recognize that regula- tion of this problem regardless of its ~lgmfiCance is certain to continue that such regulations still continue to vary considerably ftom state to state that many if not a majority of the reguhitiOns ~ tjiis area will be of the type com pletely prohibiting the discharge of wasteti i~ any ~torm `whether treated or riot from marine toilets and that such regulations will be inEurlous to the mobility of recreational boating that this Association Is attempting to foster in other fields If this is so then what can be done to areend or modify these regulations so that they are less injurious to recreational bout owners and to the mobility of recreational craft? `The `solution suggested by the C~~nmittee Is the `p~repa'rat1on of a model law on this subject that will avoid the ~ho~tcomlngs of most of the present regulations and still alleviate the problem o~ the dIscl~arge of'~'untreated waste~ from recreational watercraft Before such Jeg~s1ation can be effective 1~io*Ov~r tbere1must be available anh pollution device~ capable of installatiQfl Oh recreiltuotlal eraft~ at a reasonable cost An assessment o-f such devices is then neceSsary ANT~PQLLUTIO~ DEvICES FOR RECREaTIONAL WAt~liC1~AFr There `aretliree ~n~incipal types of treatmen.t detichsnow atailkblO:'' 1. Uhlorinators.-Chlorinators are devices designed'to bOld aewage for at' lC~st a nominal period~ `of ti,me to permit `introductionof dosages' of disinf'eetantS to kill bacteria ~onta1hed therein. To meet `any' reasonable health stathdardl such PAGENO="0118" 110 units must be equipped with a macerator or with some other type of agitator which will cause the breakup of solids to permit disinfection and to inhibit settling of solids in the chlorinator. 2. Incinerators.-These units are designed to trap the waste material, gen- erally in a previously inserted bag, and to hold the materials until the device is activated. Upon activation, the bag with the sewage materials is dropped into a burning chamber where it is consumed by a burner which is ignited by turning the burning control as prescribed. These units are usually provided with exhaust fans to remove odors from the area to over-board vents. Generally, appropriate controls are provided to assure that the device cannot be activated when the toilet is in use. 3. Holding Tanks.-A holding tank is simply a waste tank placed on board the vessel and attached to the marine toilet so that all materials are pumped from the toilet into the tank. Such devices can be emptied in one of two ways, the first through a pump attachment which empties the tank into a shoreside sewer or septic tank and the second by pumping the materials directly into the waters of the lake. Each of these units has some disadvantages which should be mentioned. 1. Chlorinators.-An "Evaluation' of Marine Toilet Chlorinators" is a report prepared by Syracuse University in 1962 for the New York State Department of Health and contains some excellent suggestions relative to the use of chiori- nators. This report as well as the experience of others in using chlorinators indi- cates that the devices must retain the waste materials for a minimal period of time to assure adequate treatment by the disinfectant used with the device. Also, should the boat owner allow the disinfectant source to become depleted, there is no way that the unit can be designed to continue to hold the materials until a disinfectant is introduced. It is believed that this situation could be greatly alleviated simply by having manufacturers of such. devices print on the devices themselves or on literature designed to be placed in the head of a boat, instructions as to its use. It is not considered probable that many boat owners who have had these units installed will permit them to be regularly operated in a manner designed to destroy their effectiveness. 2. Incinerators.-Tbe principal objections to units of this nature relate to their size and to the fact that most use propane gas as fuel. In other respects. they are considered to be the most effective anti-pollutant device because they destroy the wastes entirely. Although the size limitation cannot easily be modi- fied, the danger of introducing propane gas on board a boat can be almost com- pletely reduced by a carefully designed and proper installation of the unit and the fuel bottles. 3. Holding Tanks.-Units of this nature seem to have the greatest appeal to health officials, probably because they are regarded as the next best thing to actually sealing a toilet. However, these installations are not without disadvan- tage. If holding tanks are to be pumped ashore, relatively expensive sewer In- stallations at marinas are required. If they are to be emptied In outlying waters, the possibility of their being discharged at dockside will continue to exist and, should such happen, would completely negate the installation of the device. Hold- ing tanks also require considerable space on board boats where space, regardless of the size of the boat, Is always limited. Holding tanks should have chemicals added from time to time to reduce the Increased bacteriological effects of retain- ing sewage for prolonged periods of time. The longer such materials are retained without the introduction of appropriate chemicals, the more virulent the waste materials become. However, It is believed that with the provision of appropriate instructions to the user, any boat owner utilizing such an installation willassure that It is used properly. Although there are disadvantages to each of these units, it Is not felt by the Committee that these are such that the only alternative to continued pollution is the sealing of toilets. Certainly these units will perform with no less effective- ness than the average municipal eewage treatment plant, and because of the boat owner's Interest in unpolluted waters, It is believed by the Committee that the units will be carefully and properly maintained and operated. It Is therefore `the conclusion of the Committee that suitable and adequate devices are presently available for installation aboard recreational watercraft that will treat sewage to a standard acceptable to most health nfficials. Since any of the three units above are acceptable treatment devices, aad since the selection of one of the three by a boat owner will be based on personal considerations, it is recommended that a model law permit the use of any of the three devices. PAGENO="0119" 111 MODEL LAW After concluding that suitable anti-pollution devices were available for Instal- lation on recreational watercraft, the Committee requested the Outboard Boat- ing Club of America to prepare a model law dealing with the general subject of pollution from recreational craft. This model law has been extensively re- viewed by the Committee and others, and suggested revisions or modifications incorporated into the final draft which is included In this Report as Appendix C. This model law provides for several features that are worthy of individual mention. To assure that the standards required by such legislation do not vary from state to state, they have been incorporated into the model act as a part thereof. This is most important, for one of the principal justifications of this model act to the Committee has been that adoption thereof nationally would greatly facilitate the mobility of recreational craft. If individual standards could be established by each state, this mobility would be completely destroyed and the purpose of the act entirely negated. The Committee was also impressed by testimony of manufacturers of anti- pollution devices wherein they pointed out to the Committee that the trend in current legislation was to require a complete laboratory test of every anti- pollution device by its manufacturer before the unit would be accepted by the particular state. In an effort to reduce this expense to the manufacturer, and to avoid duplicate tests of an almost identical nature, the Committee has per- mitted the manufacturer in the model law to certify in writing on the basis of any test which the manufacturer makes of its unit, whether or not the unit meets the requirements of the model act. In other respects, the model law has been drafted in such a manner as to assure that it can easily be used without major amendments in any State in the country. This was, of course, done intentionally in hopes that the goal of uniformity in this legislation would be further accommodated. ~irrnn During its investigations, the Committee was impressed with the number of persons who, when discussing pollution from recreational watercraft, were concerned only with the depositing of trash, garbage, and other materials in the water which, perhaps, could be mare appropriately termed "litter". Before receiving the results of its questionnaire survey, it was the personal opinion of most of the Committee members that the litter problem was of greater con- cern than the problem of pollution, and the questionnaire results confirmed this belief. American ingenuity being what it is, it appears that food and beverage con- tainers are becoming more and more indestructible. Milk cartons, beverage cans and bottles, and other food containers are not only extremely resistant to deterioration through exposure to the elements, but most of them float, resulting in their accumulation on the beaches adjacent to heavily used waterways. Even when the items washed up on the beach are not necessarily dangerous to humans, they offend the senses because they are so foreign to the area. Since they do not appear to naturally waste away and since they are not capable of being eaten by fish, fowl, or wildlife, the only way they can be removed is through human action and such is difficult, if not impossible, when the cost of patrolling the thousands of miles of shoreline of this nation is considered. This does not mean that recreational boat owners are the primary offenders in this area. There is no question in the Committee's mind that a substantial amount of this litter is being deposited by the crews of commercial vessels plying these waters. Because such crews eat all meals on board and natura1ly consume a far greater amount of foods per person than is consumed by recrea- tional boat owners who, although greater in numbers, cruise much less and appear to eat on board less frequently, it is apparent that the continued practice of dumping all waste materials over the side into the waters will result in a large accumulation of litter on the beaches. The litter problem is not easllç' resolved simply by passing legislation. This is a problem which can only be resolved through a direct attack utilizing all possible means to educate every segment of the public as to the problem and its likely effects if not abated. Appropriate legislation can be helpful, however, to ensure that marinas and public boating facilities provide trash receptacles PAGENO="0120" 112 and that commercial vessels are required by law to destroy materials through incineration or to~ place them in trash receptacles ~or di~pqsal on shoreS Because of this, provisions of this nature are included in the mod.e~ law recommended herein by the Committee. i~NCLQSIN.G The Committee has attempted to mai.utain an objective approach to. the problems covered by this report. As more and more evidence wa~, uncovered indicating the miniscule nature of the pollution problem and the gargantuan efforts being made by persons who should know better to correct it, the objec- tivity of the Committee lessened considerably. StiU, we believe we have well and amply supported our conclusions herein. The Committee was appalled at the tremendous amount. of industrial waste and untreated sewage being regularly deposited in the lakes, streams and, rivers of this country. Although it was gratifying to the Committee to, establish to its complete satisfaction that virtually none of this pollution was. the. result of the use of recreational watercraft, this limited satisiaction was comj~d.etely over- whelmed by the staggering knowledge of the condition of rnu~ji of, our water. Indeed, unless much . stronger efforts to correct Uiis situation are made in the future than have been made in the past, there may well be no recreational watercraft in existence to worry about because no waters suitable for recreation will remain. APPENDIX A-QuEsTIoNNAIRE ON WkTaR' PoLuuTIoN BY REOJIXATIONAL WATERCRAFT STATE OF MICHIGAN, WATERWAYS CoMMIssIoN, DETROIT; Mirnr., May 25, 196k. DEAR SIR: The National Association of Boating Law Administrators is an or- ganization consisting of State officials concerned with programs involving the registration, regulation, and development of facilities for recreational water- craft. S Because of the considerable concern being expressed througholit' the country at this time about the `con'tinuing~ pollution of our Water, it i~' the de~ire of this Association to determhie the extent `of such pollution' attributable t& re'crea- Monal boating. After basic determinations of this type have `been made, it Is thefurther intent of the Association tO mak~'recornmendations to the various States of ways to combat pollution from this source. . . S To assist the Association's Pollution Study Committee, it is requested that you complete the' enclosed questionnaire and retu~n~1t to the Outboard floating Club of Anierica which is serving as special Sta'~ Assistant to the' Committee on this study. If' you are unable to complete the questionnaire yourself; it is re- que'nted that the form be forwarded to tbe appropriate State agency having juris diction over this matter. . . . ` ` Your cooperation in' this important study Will' be most sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, ` , `` KEITH WILsi~ Chairman Pci tuition ~tudl, Uommt~tee, National Association of j~oating Law A&Mnisfrators QUESTIONNAIRE ON W ATFR POLLtJTION BY RI ~REATIONAL WATIIRCRAFT Completed by ` S NAME REPRESENTINC- ADDRESS - Phe object of this questionnaire is to try to develop infOrmation and data o~i ~he extent of water pollution attributable to recreational boe±ing whether or not shch pollution is a sigrnficant factor and the natute nncl measure of corrective action to be taken if any winch will provide a remOdy withOut unduly penalizing the boat owner. " , : * S For purposes of this study the term frecreiiflôhal watercraft is defined as every descripticin of vesSel regard~es~ of method of propulsion which is used or enpable of being used as a `means of locómôtlon ou:Htlie water for recreational pursuits. PAGENO="0121" 113 1. Can you estimate, fron~ boat registration data or any other appropriate source, the number of recreational watercraft in your State with marine toilets? Yes No 2. If the answer is "Yes," please indicate in the following space how many rec- reational watereraft with n~arine toilets you estimate to be `operating on waters in your State. 3. If your area of jurisdiction is ~lefined other than by state boundaries, please explain and, if possible, estimate the number of recreational watercraft with marine toilets in your area. 4. Can the total number of recreational watercraft with marine toilets in your State or area be broken down according to boat size? Yes No. 5. If the answer is "Yes," please indicate in the spaces below the number of rec- reational watereraft with marine to'ilets in your State or area in each of the fol- lowing size groups: Less than 26 feet in length 26 feet to less than 40 feet in length 40 feet to not more than 65 feet in length 6. If you have a numerical breakdown of recreational watereraft with marine toilets classified other than by size ar length of the vessel, we would appreciate having this information. Please show any date in the following space. 7. Can you estimate the number of recreational watercraft without marine toliets in your State or area? Yes No 8. If the answer is "Yes," please indicate howrnany. 9. Below are listed the types of water, some orall of which may exist in your State or area. Please mark' `the degree and kind of pollution FROM RECREA- TIONAL CRAFT ONLY on your waters. Mark the degree of pollution by `circling #1, 2, 3 or 4. For example, on rivers and streams, sewage and/or garbage, trash and waste FROM RECREATIONAL CRAFT are possibly contributing to pollution. If, in your State or area, sewage is a MAJOR contributor to pollution, circle #1; if MODERATE, circle #2; if a MINIMAL contributor, circle #3; if it does NOT contribute, circle #4. Do the same with garbage, trash and waste, marking the degree of each in each type of water. Sewage Garbage Trash Waste Example: Rivers and streams 1 2 ® 4 1 2 ® 4 1 ® 3 4 1 2 3 @ DEFINITIONS Sewage: The contents of a drain, especially human excrement. Garbage: For example, animal or vegetable matter from a kitchen, market or store. Trash: Something discarded as no longer useful or not useable, especially paper, metal, wood, glass or plastic products. Waste: Material lost or unused during a process, leakage, e.g., motor oil. KEY 1 CIrcling this number means that the kind of pollution listed Is a major contributor to pollution in your area. 2 Circling this number means a moderate contribution to pollution. 3 Circling this number means a minimal contribution~ to pollution'. 4 Circling this number means no contribution to pollution. Type of water . . Kinds of pollution Sewage Garbage Trash Waste , Coastalorocean 123 GreatLakes 123 4 1234 4 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 Inland lakes: ` , ` ` Under 500 acres 1 2 .3 4. 1 2 3 4 500 acres or over 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Rivers and streams 1 2 3 ` 4 1 2 3 4 Reservoirs 1 2 .3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 10. How is the problem of pollution from recreational watercraft being handled in your State or area: by regulation? - by education? - otherwise? _Please elaborate. ., ` ` ` 11. Do you ~have any suggested ~plutions over and above what is already being done to combat pollution from recreational watercraft in your State or. area? 12. To your knowledge, have any studies been made in your State or. area regard- ing contribution to the water pollution problem by recreational watercraft? Yes - No (In answering the foregoing, you may include studies by public PAGENO="0122" 114 health or water pollution agencies of Federal, state or local government, and/or studies by universities and private research organizations or any other studies of which you may know.) If the answer is "Yes," and copies of these studies are available in your files, we would greatly appreciate your sending one of each to us along with this completed questionnaire. If extra copies of these studies are unavailable to you, it is requested that you furnish all appropriate names and addresses where we can write for copies of such studies. Please give these sources of information in the space provided below. 13. In your opinion, are boating groups and individuals self-policing in efforts they make to keep the water clean and shoreside areas clean for their own sake? ____________________________ 14. Do you think marinas are contributing to water pollution by lack of ade- quate facilities at docking and mooring areas to remove sewage from boats or garbage and trash deposited in the water? Yes - No - Please comment. 15. Additional comments, if any Please return this questionnaire, upon completion to: Outboard Boating Club of America, 307 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill., 60601. APPENDIX B-FINDINGs OF WATER POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE SuRVEY FINDINGS OF WATER POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY IScale of degree of pollution: 1-1.5, major; 1.6-2.5, moderate; 2.6-3.5, minimal; 3.6-4, no problemj Kind of water . Sewage Garbage Trash Waste Average value Of answer Coastal-ocean (30 responding) Great Lakes 1 (7 respondIng) Inland lakes: 3.0 2.9 3. 3 2.9 3. 1 2. 7 3. 3 3. 1 3.2 2. 9 Under 500 acres (50 responding) 500 acres or over (45 responding) Rivers and streams (54 responding) Roservoirs (43 responding) Average value of answer. 3. 2 3. 1 3. 1 3. 2 3. 1 .. 3. 2 3. 0 3. 2 3. 1 3.2 2. 8 2.7 3. 0 . 2.9 2.9 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 3. 3 3.2 3. 1 3. 0 .. 3. 1 3. 1 1 The figures for the Great Lakes may be misleading inasmuch as the total number of responses concerning this type of water was only 7. Therefore, a single extreme response will affect the final average answer more than a single such response would in any of the other Kind of water" categories. A. How is the problem of pollution from recreational watercraft being handled in your state area? (52 responding) Regulation, 42.3%; Education, 21.2%; Both, 36.5%. B. Are boating groups and individuals self-policing in efforts they make to keep the water shoreside areas clean for their own sake? (58 responding) Yes, 39.6%; No, 46.~%; boating groups and clubs are but not individuals, 13.8%. C. Do you think marinas are contributing to water pollution, etc.? (61 responding) Yes, 62.3%; No, 37.7%. Of 91 State and Federal agencies who answered to questionnaire only 8 cited pollution from recreational watercraft as a major contributor to the over-all water pollution problem by circling #1 on the questionnaire form. They and the kind of pollution they stressed are as follows: 1. DivIsion of Water Safety, Alabama Conservation Department-Sewage and waste on rivers and streams 2. Chief Sanitary Engineer, Arkansas State Board of Health-Trash on lakes under 500 acres; trash and waste on lakes 500 acres or over; trash and waste on rivers and streams; garbage, trash and waste on reservoirs 3. Georgia Department of Public Health-Garbage and trash on lakes under 500 acres 4. Michigan Department of Health-Trash on Great Lakes 5. Sanitary Engineering Division, North Carolina State Board of Health- Sewage on coastal or ocean waters, lakes under 500 acres, lakes over 500 acres, rivers and streams, and reservoirs PAGENO="0123" 115 6. Municipal Waste Section, Division of Water Resources, West Virginia De- partment of Natural Resources-Sewage and waste on rivers and streams 7. Region 6, U.S. Forest Service (Oregon and Washington)-Trash on lakes under 500 acres 8. Boat License Division, Illinois Department of Conservation-Sewage and waste on rivers and streams. AGENCIES RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE Division of Water Safety, Alabama Conservation Department Boat Registration Branch, Arizona Motor Vehicle Division Water Quality Control Board, California Resources Agency Water Pollution Control Engineer, Colorado Department of Public Health Sanitary Engineering Division, Connecticut State Department of Health Small Boat Safety Division, Delaware Commission of Shell Fisheries Engineer, Florida Board of Conservation Division of Water Resources, Florida Board of Conservation Georgia Department of Public Health Environmental Health Engineering, Hawaii Department of Health Idaho Motor Vehicle Bureau Division of Public Health, Alaska Department of Health & Welfare Chief Sanitary Engineer, Arkansas State Board of Health California Division of Small Craft Harbors Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California Department of Public Health Chief Boat Warden, Colorado Game, Fish & Parks Department Boating Safety Commission, Connecticut Dept. of Agric. & Natural Resources harbor Precinct, Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Florida Boating Council Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Florida State Board of Health Georgia Game & Fish Commission Harbors Division, Hawaii Department of Transportation Public Health Biologist, Engineering and Sanitation Division, Idaho Department of Health Kansas Forestry, Fish & Game Commission Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission I*wlaine Water Improvement Commission District Engineer, Maryland Department of Water Resources Massachusetts Division of Motorboats Michigan State Waterways Commission Section of Water Pollution Control, Minnesota Department of Health Water Pollution Board, Missouri, Department of Public Health & Welfare Montana Pollution Control Sect., Aquatic Blol., Montana State Board of Health Boating Division, Nebraska Game, Forestation & Parks Commission Motorboat Section, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles New Jersey Marine Patrol New Mexico Park & Recreation Commission `* Division of Environmental Health Services, New York Department `of Health' Sanitary Engineering Division, North Carolina State Board of Health Division of Water Supply & Pollution Control, North DakOta State D'epat~tmè~nt of Health Ohio Division of Watercraft ` State Sanitary Authority, Oregon State Board of Health l)ivision of Harbors & Rivers, Rhode Island Rhode Island Department of Health Division of Law Enforcement, South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department Boat Licensing Division, Illinois Department of Conservation Superintendent of Waters, Iowa Conservation Commission Division of Boating, Kentucky Department of Public Safety Boating Division, Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs Sanitary Biologist, Massachusetts Department of Public Health Michigan Department of Health State Boating Safety Committee, Mississippi Game & Fish Commission Sanitary Engineer Director, Water Supply and Pollution Control, Missouri De- partment of Health, Education & Welfare Montana State Board of Health Environmental Health Services, Nebraska Department of Health PAGENO="0124" 116 Nevada State Health Department New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission New Mexico Department of Public Health Division of Motorboats, New York Conservation Department Division of Stream Sanitation, North Carolina l)ept. of Water Resources North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission North Dakota Game & Fish Department Oklahoma Planning & Resources Board Oregon State Marine Board Division of Sanitary Engineering, Pennsylvania Department of Health Division of Boating, South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department Tennessee Game and Fish Commission - Texas Department of Health Utah Boating Division Sanitary Engineering Section, Washington State Department of Health Municipal Waste Section, Division of Water Resources, West Virginia Depart- ment of Natural Resources Sanitary Engineering, Wisconsin State Board of Health Wyoming Game & Fish Commission Motor Vehicle Division, Texas Highway Department Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries Washington Pollution Control Commission; West Virginia Department of Health Port Advisor, Wisconsin Department of Resource Development `Wisconsin Department~f Conservation Wyoming Department of Public Health U.S. COAST GUARD Third District (New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware) Eighth District (Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, portions of Alabama, Arkan- sas, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida) Thirteenth District (Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana) U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Region 2 (California) Region 4 (Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona) Region 5 (Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico) U.S. FOREST SERVICE Region 5 (California) Region 6 (Oregon and Wa~h1ngton) .Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Regional Office, Oregon Headquarters Bureau of Outdoor Recreation National Park Service National Capital Region Tennessee Valley Authority ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 11 AND 15 OF WATER POLLUTION QUESTION- NAIRE SUBMI~~ED BY WATER POLLUTION STUDY COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOOIATIO?~ OF BOATING LAWADMINIaTImATORS , -- - It would appear from the questionnaire that the pollution -problem created by recreational watercraft is considered to be, in most waters, negligible. A -few quotes from the questionnaire will suffice in this regard: "In my opinior~,pollption from recreational craft Is Infinitesimal. "Make cities and communities put in proper disposal plants. Get at the source-clean. up ~1~e big polluters like cilbies, towns, industry and shore cottages.." . - - ,*,, - "Most of the trash in our freshwater streams is left by people fishing on the banks." - Answers to the questionnaire-indicated that, cf the small part of the pollution problem created by r~creational watercraft, trash thrown overboard by individ- PAGENO="0125" 117 uals was of. the greatest coucern...Most individuals, believed that `members of boating organizations, clubs, etc., are fairly well self-pcillcing. The m~joi4ity of those. replying suggested education through literature, posters, and clubs as the best and ultimate solution to stopping whatever .poilution is being contributed by recreational watercrai~t users-"the water they .pollu~te is their own" Idea. An example of a successful education program against water pollution is that con- ducted by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, which* has done a big job in the last few years through educational programs. It was the consensus of those replying that the marine toilet is not' a noticèa- ble contributor to water pollution where it exists, with the exception of a few areas of heavy boating concentration, notably marinas. Those replying said that marinas could and should solve their problems by providing adequate shore facilities and regulating marine toilet use by those docked at the marina. Rough figures indicate that on a nationwide average, less.than 10% of all recreational watercraft have marine toilets. Necessarily, these are larger craft which are found more often on coastal and Great Lakes waters than on small land-locked lakes. With the expected increase in recreational boating, there was some concern expressed about marine toilets becoming a pollution problem in the future. Most thoughts expressed in this area were that if the problem does arise, it could best `be handled by installation of various treatment devices on marine toilets, including chlorination, incineration, and holding tank systems. Where there are regulations, the trend is noticeably away from toilet sealing restrictions and toward treatment systems. The sealing restrictions, operating against nature, decidedly discourage recreational boating and also create administrative head- aches. ~Tirtually all who made suggestions of any nature, stressed the idea of uni- formity among the states in implementing regulations to control this matter. Without uniformity, it was felt that new regulations would be unreasonably burdensome on interstate boaters as well as difficult to enforce. APPENDIX C-A MODEL ACT TO PR0HIrnr LITTERING AND THE DISPOSAL OF UNTREATED SEWAGE FROM BOATS A MODEL ACT TO PROHIBIT LITTERING AND THE DISPOsAL OF UNTREATED SEWAGE FROM BOATS Title An act to regulate the disposal of sewage from .watercraft and to prohibit littering of waterways § 1. De/laitions For purposes of this Act, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning: (a) The term "watercraft" means any contrivance used or capable of being used for navigation upon water whether or not capable of self-pro- pulsion, except passenger or cargo-carrying vessels subject to the Interstate Quarantine Regulations of the United States Public Health Service adopted pursuant to Title 42 United States Code § 241 and 243. (b) The term "sewage" means all human body wastes. (c) The term "litter" means any bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap metal, junk, paper, garbage, rubbish, or similar refuse discarded as no longer useful or useable. (d) The term "marine toilet" means any toilet on or within any water- craft to discharge waste. (e) The term "waters of this State" means `all of the waterways on which watercraft shall be used or operated. NOTE: In some states it may be desired to limit the application of this Act to certain waters only and thereby exempt large bodies of water or water areas that are remote from population centers and on which there is no congestion `and no conceivable boat pollution problem. The waters subject to pollution control under this Act could be enumerated or the state agency which Is designated to administer the Act could be `authorized to make a finding that a particular waterway should or should not be affected. (f) The term ~`person" means an Individual, partnership, firm, corpora- tion, association, or other entity. PAGENO="0126" 118 (g) The term "Department" means the (name of the State agency which shall administer this Act). The choice of agency lies within the discretion of each state. It is recom- mended, however, that consideration be given to the state agency dealing with boating matters in general. § ~. Littering or polluting water-restrictions (a) No person shall place, throw, deposit, or discharge, or cause to be placed, thrown, deposited, or discharged into the waters of this State, any litter, sewage, or other liquid or solid materials which render the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes. (b) It shall be unlawful to discharge, dump, deposit or throw garbage into the waters of this State from a watercraft engaged in commerce. This section is deemed sufficiently broad and flexible to prohibit any act committed on shore, in the water, or from aboard any description of water- craft, which litters or tends to pollute the water. § 3. Marine toilets-restrictions (a) No marine toilet on any watercraft used or operated upon waters of this State shall be operated so as to discharge any untreated sewage Into said waters directly or indirectly. (b) No person owning or operating a watercraft with a marine toilet shall use, or permit the use of, such toilet on the waters of this State, unless the toilet is equipped with facilities that will adequately treat, hold, incinerate or otherwise handle sewage in a manner that is capable of preventing water pollution. (c) No container of sewage shall be placed, lefi, discharged or caused to be placed, left or discharged in or near any waters of this state by any person at any time. This section prohibits the discharge of any untreated sewage from marine toilets. § 4. Marine toilets-pollution control devices (a) After the effective date of this Act every marine toilet on watercraft used or operated upon the waters of this State shall be equipped with a suitable pollu- tion control device in operating condition. (b) Pollution control devices that are acceptable for purposes of this Act are: 1. Facilities that macerate or grind sewage solids and which, by chlorina- tion or other means, disinfect the remnants before discharge into the water. 2. Holding tanks which retain toilet wastes for disposal at dockside or on-shore pumping facilities or in deep waters away from shore. 3. Incineratingtype devices which reduce toilet wastes to ash. 4. Any other device that is tested by a recognized testing laboratory and determined to be effective in arresting the possibility of pollution from sew- age passing into or through marine toilets. This section recognizes that there are a va:riety of devices on the market designed to eliminate the possibility of water pollution from sewage passing into or through toilets aboard watercraft. Many of these devices have been tested by various state public health and water pollution control agencies and independent laboratories and found to be efficient for their purpose. However, with further improvements and innovations likely in this product area in the future, it is unwise to "freeze" specifications for such devices in statutory language. All technological changes can be readily incorporated into rules and regulations. The desirability of nationwide uniformity in requirements for marine toilet pollution control devices cannot be emphasized too strongly. Boatmen will have to incur additional expense to install and maintain such devices. It would be a hardship and an inconvenience for boatmen traveling from state to state to be subjected to different jurisdictional standards of accept- ability of these devices. § 5. Marine toilets-chemical treatment facilities--standards (a) Every chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be securely affixed to the interior discharge opening of a marine toilet, and all sewage passing into or through such toilet shall pass solely through such treatment facility. PAGENO="0127" 119 (b) Sewage passing through a marine toilet equipped with a chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be deemed untreated unless the effluent meets the following minimum standards: 1. Sufficiently divided into fine particles so as to be free of unsightly solids. 2. Containing 1,000 or less coliform per 100 ml. This standard meets the requirements of the U. S. Public Health Service and is acceptable by most state public health agencies for swimming and bathing purposes. (c) The chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be of a type which functions automatically with the operation of the marine toilet, does not depend on septic action as part of its treatment, is easy to clean and maintain, and does not permit the escape of dangerous gases or obnoxious odors. (d) The disinfecting agent used in the facility shall be of a kind that does not necessitate too frequent replenishment, is easily obtainable, and when discharged as a part of the effluent is not toxic to humans, fish or wildlife. The foregoing standards are generally acceptable under existing state marine chlorinator laws. In the interest of uniformity they are recommended to other states proposing the adoption of such laws. ~ 6 Marine toilets-standards for manufacturers of pollution control devices Every manufacturer of a marine toilet pollution control device described in this Act shall certify to the Departmellt in writing that his product meets the standards set forth in this Act or in any implementing regulations adopted by the Department. Every such certified statement shall be accompanied by a test report showing that the product meets the prescribed standards. It shall be un- lawful to sell or to offer for sale in this State any marine toilet pollution control device that has not been so certified and approved by the Department. § 7. Certificate of number The Department may require persons making application for a certificate of number for a watercraft pursuant to (statutory citation of State Boat Number- ing Act to be entered here) to disclose whether such water craft has within or on it a marine toilet, and if so, to certify that such toilet is equipped with a suit- able pollution control device as required by this Act. The Department is fur- ther empowered to direct that the issuance of a certificate of number or a re- newal thereof be withheld if such device has not been installed as required by this Act. § 8. On-shore trash receptacles The owner or whoever is lawfully vested with the possession, management and control of a marina or other waterside facility used by watercraft for launching, docking, mooring and related purposes shall be required to have trash receptacles or similar devices designed for the depositing of trash and refuse at locations where they can be conveniently used by watercraft occupants. § 9. Ed~cation The Department is hereby authorized to undertake and to enlist the support and cooperation of all agencies, political subdivisions, and organizations in the conduct of a public educational program designed to inform the public of the un- desirability of depositing trash, litter, and other materials in the waters of this State and of the penalties provided by this Act for such action, and use funds provided by the Legislature for this purpose. The Department is further author- ized to utilize all means of communication in the conduct of this program. § 10. Enforcement All watercraft located upon waters of this State shall be subject to inspection by the Department or any lawfully designated agent or inspector thereof for the purpose of determining whether such watercraft is equipped in compliance here- with. The Department is further authorized to inspect marinas or other water- side public facilities used by watercraft for launching, docking or mooring pur- poses to determine whether they are equipped with trash receptacles and/or sew- age disposal equipment. § 11. Local regulations prohibited Through the passage of this Act, the State fully reserves to itself the exclusive right to establish requirements with reference to the disposal of sewage from watercraft. In order to ensure state-wide uniformity, the regulation by any political subdivision of the State of sewage disposal from watereraft is prohibited. PAGENO="0128" 120 § 12~ Rules, and regulations `IPhe Director of the Department is hereby authorized md empowered to make adopt, promulgate, amend and repeal all rules and r~gu1ations necessary, or con- ~ement for the carr3lng out of dutie~, and obh~ations ~tnd powers conferied on the Department by this Act. § 13. Filing of regulations A copy of the regulations adopted pursuant to this Act and any Of the amend- ments thereto, shall be filed in the office of the Department and in the office of the (official State record keeping agency). Rules and regulations shall be pub- lished by the Department in a convenient form. § 14. Penalties (a) Every manufacturer of a marine toilet pollution control device who violates Section 6 of this Act or any regulations adopted by the Department pursuant thereto shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shailbe punished with a fine'of not more than $__. (b) Any person who violates any other prevision of this Act or regulations of the Department adopted pursuant thereto shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor and upon conviction shall be punished with a fine of not more than or by imprisonment of not more than days, or by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. § 15. Savings clause If any court shall find any section or sections of this Act to be unconstitu- tional or otherwise inva1id~ such findings shall not affect the validity of any sections of this Act which can be given effect. § 16. Effective date The provisions of this Aetwith reference to requiring watercraft with toilet facilities to be equipped with pollution control devices shall take effect three years from the date of the adoption of this Act. The provisions of this Act prohibiting littering~ the waterways shall take effect immediately. It is suggested that the effective date of this Act be delayed so that all )~èrsons affected by its provisions will have a reasonable amount of time to become acquainted with it and secure the required treatment devices. EXHIBiT C-THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION STANDARD FOR WATERCRAFT SEWAGE DISPOSAL DEVICES (ADOPTED FEBRUARY 15, 1968) SECTION 1-GENERAL 1.00 COVERAGE: This Standard covers devices intended for the control of sewage aboard watercraft. Said devices may be designed for treatment and discharge, treatment and storage, holding or destruction of sewage, or any com- bination thereof, intended for use aboard watercraft. It shall include those appurtenances and/or attachments thereto that aye necessary for the proper func- tion of said devices or which modify their operation or function. 1.01 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: These Standards are established for the evaluation of equipment covered herein and are considered to be basic and minimum requirements. 1.02 ALTERNATE MATERIALS: Variations are permissible when they tend to make the equipment more resistant to corrosion, wear and physical damage, or if they improve the general operation and performance of the device. Varia- tions shall be approved prior to their use. Where specific materials are men- tioned, it is understood that the use of other materials proved to be equally satis- factory in every respect will be acceptable. 1.03 REVIEWS AND REVISIONS: Following adoption of the Standard and prior to its printed publication, a general review shall be carried out by the Na- tional Sanitation Foundation Committee on Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the requirements and to ascer- tain if additional requirements are indicated. Subsequent to the printed publica- tion of this Standard, complete review of the Standard shall be conducted at in- tervals of not more than three years to determine what changes, deletions, or additions, if any, are necessary to maintain current and effective requirements consistent with new technology and progress. These reviews shall be conducted PAGENO="0129" 121 by appropriate representatives from the public health, industry, safety agencies and user groups. Final adoption of revisions shall be in accordance with the pro- cedures established by the NSF Committee on Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices. SECTION 2-DEFINITIONS 2.00 BY-PASS: The term "by-pass" shall mean any provisions, mechanical or functional, by which an operator can selectively discharge untreated sewage into the waterway. 2.01 FAILSAFE: The word "failsafe" shall mean failure in a manner that will automatically preclude discharge of untreated sewage to the degree established in this Standard, when installed and operated in accordance with the manufac- turer's instructions. 2.02 FRESH WATER: Those waters having a specific conductivity less than a solution containing 6000 ppm of Sodium Chloride. (9,400 micro ohms resistance) 2.03 SALT WATER: Those waters having a specific conductivity in excess of a solution containing 6000 ppm of Sodium Chloride. (9,400 micro ohms resistance) 2.04 WATERCRAFT: A floating vessel, intended to accommodate not more than 40 persons. 2.05 SEWAGE: The term "sewage" means all human body wastes. 2.06 SEALING: The word "sealing" shall mean attachment of a fastener which cannot be removed without evidence thereof. 2.07 TECHNICAL WORDS AND TERMS: Technical words and terms used in the context of this Standard shall he understood to be as defined and used in nationally recognized test methods and procedures as herein referenced. SECTION 3-MATERIAL 3 :00 GENERAL: Materials used in the construction of watercraft sewage dis- posal devices shall be capable of withstanding exposure to the intended use envi- ~onment, with special attention to the operation of watercraft, the corrosive actions of chemical intended for use in connection therewith and the corrosive actions of fresh and/or salt water. 3.01 DURABILITY: All materials shall be durable and capable of w-ithstand- [ng the normal stresses incident to shipping, installation and operation. They must be structurally sound, under operation conditions. 3.02 DISSIMILAR MATERIALS: Dissimilar materials may be used but shall have galvanic compatibility. 3.03 WELDING: When weidments are used, the weld area and deposited weld material shall meet the applicable corrosion resistant requirements. (See Items 3.00 and 3.02) SECTION 4-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.00 GENERAL: A watercraft sewage treatment or storage device shall be designed and constructed such that the intended purpose of the device, when installed and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, shall not be adversely affected by operation of the watercraft nor by the normal anvironment to which it is subjected. Normal conditions shall include vibration, pitch, roll, heel, shock, temperature and chemicals used. The device shall be free af non-functional rough or sharp edges, or other hazards which could cause injury to persons operating or servicing the unit. 4.01 FAILSAFE : All devices shall be "failsafe". 4.011 There shall be a positive and recognizable indication to the user that the system has failed (non-operative or malfunctioning). 4.02 BY-PASS: Devices shall be classified as to whether they are "with" or `without" by-pass provision. All literature and the data plate (see Item 4.09) shall state the appropriate classification. If a "by-pass" is provided in or on a sewage disposal device it shall provide positive closure and provisions shall be made for sealing same. 4.03 HOLDING (STORAGE) TANK: When a device or appurtenance is de- signed, or intended, to prevent the discharge to the waterway of treated or [untreated sewage, it shall be capable of positive closure and means provided for sealing same. Storage tanks shall have the tank outlet located in the bottom uf the tank or otherwise designed so that complete draining of the tank may be Issured. 4.04 FITTING-HOLDING TANKS: Fittings intended for use in emptying ~iolding and retention tanks devices shall be designed to receive an insert tube 94-376-----GS-----9 PAGENO="0130" 122 capable of friction fit in the Inside Diameter of a 1½" N.P.S. Schedule 40 pipe. Said fitting shall, in addition, be designed, constructed and/or equipped to assure a liquid tight closure during normal operation of the watereraft; afford no ob- struction to the flow of sewage; shall be cleanable; and shall when necessary be designed to prevent the discharge of static electricity. 4.041 Fittings intended for use in emptying holding and retention tank shall be permanently and legibly marked with the word "WASTE". If the cover is detachable, then both the cover and fitting shall be so marked. 4.05 OPERATION UNDER LOAD CONDITIONS: Treatment and discharge de- vices shall, when installed and operated in accordance with manufacturer's in- structions, be capable of producing an effluent meeting the microbiological and chemical/physical requirements of this Standard throughout the testing period of two hours operations at normal load conditions after initial discharge, fol- lowed by 20 minutes of operation at peak conditions, and thea an additional two- hours at normal load conditions. 4.051< NORMAL LOAD CONDITIONS~<: The device shall be `placed in service and used (flushed) at a frequency of i/2 hour. When discharge of effluent is evident, the normal loading shall continue for a period of two hours, at which time the Peak Load conditions (Item 4.052), shall be applied. 4.052° PEAK LOAD CONDITIONS*: Single Head Units: The minimum time between uses (flushes) under peak load conditions shall be considered to be five (5) minutes over a 20 minute period. Multiple Head Units: Peak load conditions for multiple head units shall be considered simultaneous uses (flushes) of all units possible at five (5) minute intervals over a twenty (20) minute period. 4.06 SERVICEABILITY: Units shall be so designed and constructed that when installed in accordance with a manufacturer's recommendations, they shall be capable of being easily maintained, drained and cleaned. 4.07 ENERGY AND CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS: the manufacturer's engi- neering data and literature shall specify the power requirements to properly op- erate the device and/or its necessary auxiliary systems. 4.071 Both the manufacturer's literature and data plate shall state the type of chemicals to be used, if any. If of a proprietary nature, the trade designation shall be given; or, if of a non-proprietary nature, the chemical name and its strength shall be stated. 4.072 When there is an effluent discharge there shall be a field test method available for determining the strength of the chemical specified. 4.073 Chemicals used in a recirculating non-discharge type device shall at least be capable of maintaining the recirculated media in a bacteriostatic condition throughout the maximum recommended use cycle. 4.08 PARTS LIST: There shall be a comprehensive parts list provided by the manufacturer with each unit. The individual parts shall be identified by means of illustration, photographs or the like, and be designated by number, letter, symbol, etc. 4.09 INSTRUCTIONS: The manufacturer shall provide clear, concise, instruc- tions with each unit which, when followed, will assure proper installation, safe and satisfactory operation and adequate procedures for long-term storage and/or securing the unit. Said instructions shall also provide recommendations for the safe storage and handling of chemicals and/or energy. 4.10 DATA PLATE: A permanent type data plate shall be provided, so inscribed as to be easily read and understood, and securely attached to the device at a location which is normally visible following recommended installation, or visi- ble under normal servicing. Said data plate shal]L include the following: 4.101 Name of Manufacturer. 4.102 Model and/or Serial number designation. 4.103 Use capacity of the unit. a. Capacity of treatment and disposal devices shall be noted in one or more of the following means: (1) the chemical dosage required per use (2) number of uses per the chemical storage provided (3) comparable type of rating b. Storage tank capacity shall be stated in terms of gallons and/or number of uses of a given volume. *Artificial media may be established for normal and peak load evaluations. PAGENO="0131" 123 4.104 The type of chemical to be used: a. If proprietary-the trade name shall be stated. b. If non-proprietary-the chemical and strength thereof shall be stated. 4.105 Energy requirements. (Electric, gas, etc.) 4.106 Classification as to by-pass ("with" or "without"). SECTION 5-EFFLUENT REQUIREMENT 5.00 General: The effluent discharged into the waterway shall not produce a lor, odor, oily film, or foam in excess of the limits specified in Item 5.003 when ê effluent is thoroughly mixed with distilled water at a 1 to 1000 dilution. 5.001 The effluent discharged into the waterway shall contain no corrosive or toxic materials w~hich are persistent and/or which produce a nuisance. 5.002 Evaluation procedure shall, insofar as possible, be those established in the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water" published by the American Public Health Association. 5.003 Acceptable Limits: Color-iS units Threshold Odor-3 Oily Filrn-no visible evidence other than air bubbles. Foam-None 5.01 Acceptable limits-Bacteriological: Devices designed to treat and dis- `arge sewage from watercraft shall produce an effluent containing not more than 11100 fecal coliform per 100 ml. Such devices shall be classified based on their ility to reduce the fecal coliform count of sewage under the load operating con- tions set forth in this standard. The following fecal coliform counts shall serve establish these classifications: Fecal calif urn ass in effluent . 0/100 ml. . 240/100 ml. or less. I . 1,000/100 ml. oi~ less. 5.011 The procedures used shall be those established in the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water" pub- lished by the American Public Health Association. 5.02 Suspended solids: An effluent discharged to the waterway shall contain visible definable suspended solids. 5.03 Nutrients: The treatment process, or chemicals used, shall not contribute the nutrient content of the effluent discharged to the waterway. 5.04 Toxicity: The effluent discharged into the waterway shall be free of sub- mees in concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to human, ant, animal or aquatic life. Any disinfecting agent shall be non-persistent. 5.05 Atmospheric discharge: Where gaseous effluents result from the treatment holding systems, the effluent shall: a. Be free of substances in concentrations, or combinations, which are toxic or harmful to human, plant, animal or aquatic life. h. Contain no viable microorganisms. c. If combustible, the manufacturer's installation instructions shall describe a means for safe discharge of said effluent. d. If emanating from an incinerator, contain no carbon monoxide, smoke, fly ash or objectionable odors or fumes when tested and as defined in U.S.A. Standard No. Z 21.6-1966 (Paragraph 2.4 and 2.11). e. If corrosive, the manufacturer's installation instructions shall describe a means for safe discharge of said effluent. f. Provision shall be made in the design and construction of devices to prevent the emission of odor or noxious fumes into the interior of the watercraft when installed and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. SECTION 6-SAFETY 1.00 General: Watercraft sewage disposal devices shall be designed and con- meted so as to present no condition which may adversely affect the craft ir iich they are installed or the occupants thereof. 3.01 Venting: Provision shall be made for venting when necessary to the tenor of the vessel of gases and vapors and liquid emanating from the device. PAGENO="0132" 124 Overboard vents shall be located to minimize the inboard return of odors througl parts or other openings, and shall be provided with means to prevent the intak of water (spray) into the device. Vents shall be connected to the device in sucl a manner, and shall be of such a diameter as will prevent pressure build-up ii the device by being free of clogging by the accumulation of solids or liquid~ therein. 6.02 Electrical components and system: The National Fire Protection Asso ciation Standards for Motor Craft (NAFB No. 302) as well as the applicabl Standards of the American Boat & Yacht Council shall serve as a guide for th evaluation of electrical components and systems. 6.03 Watertight integrity: The manufacturer's installation instructions shal clearly indicate that each thru-hull connection below the waterline which serve~ as water intake or overboard discharge, be equipped with a means to preveni the entrance of water into the device or craft. The instructions shall also clear1~ state that where by-pass or other plumbing are connected to the device, thb plumbing shall enter the overboard discharge line inboard of the closure means Further, the manufacturer's installation instructions and details shall specif~ that plumbing connections made between the device and the hull shall be 0: such strength and durability as to resist all operating pressures and stresses im posed thereon. 6.04 Combustion-type devices: When the device is of a combustion type, th manufacturre's installation instructions shall provide sufficient guidance to as sure that flues and fuse connections are constructed and installed `as set forti in current editions of the National Fire Protection Association Publications No 54 and 302. NSF JOINT COMMITTEE ON WATERCRAFT WASTE DISPOSAL `Chairman: Edward L. Stockton, Chief, Bureau of Air Pollution `Control Allegheny County Health Dept., 620 City-County Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl vania 15219. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS American Bo'a't and Yacht Council, Inc-Gordon Crowell, Raritan Engineer ing Company, 1025 North High Street, Millville, New Jersey 08332. Association of State `and Territorial Health officers-Dr. Wilcox, Associ'atioi of State & Territorial Health Officers, State Board of Health, 1400 S. West 5t1 Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201. Boating Industry Association-Donald I. Reed, Boating Industry Association 333 North Michigan Avenue, `Chicago, Illinois 60601. `Conference `o'f Municipal Public Health Engineers-~Benn J. Leland, Engineer in-charge of Chicago Office, Illinois Sanitary Water Board, 1919 West Taylo Street, `Chicago, Illinois 60612. `Conference of State Sanitary Engineers-John Vogt, Michigan State Healti Department, 3500 Logan Street, Lansing, Michigan. Engineering and Sanitation Section-American Public Health Association Bernard Berger, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration-Marvin Fast, Progran Officer, Federal Water Pollution Control Adniinistration, Department of th Interior, Great Lakes Laboratory, 2200 North Campus Boulevard, Ann Arbom Michigan. National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers-Mrs. J'ody B. Sagam Assist. Secretary, National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, 42 Lexington Avenue, New York, New Y'ork 10017. National Boating Federation-Robert `Boh'm'an, 1525 Hamilton Drive, Brook field, Wisconsin. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission-William L. Klein, Chemist Biologist, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. `Outboard Boating Club `of America-Ron Stone, Director Government Rela tions Department, Outboard Boating Club of America, 333 North Michiga: Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 6061. Tennessee Valley Authority-Charles M. ]Davidson, Chief, Public Healt] Engineering Sta~, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 PAGENO="0133" 125 The American Waterways Operators, Inc-A. M. Martinson, The American ~Tater\vays Operators, Inc., 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 502, Washington, D.C. 20036. TJnited States Public Health Service-Robert E. Novick, U.S. Public Health service, 433 West Van Buren Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. INDUSTRY Apoilco Corporation-J. A. Koihane, Jr., Apoilco Corporation, Box 238, Vie- :oria, Minnesota 55386. Ball-Red Marine Products Company-George J. Danko, Ball-Red ~Iarine Prod- icts Co., Inc., 5219 Sangamore Road, Washington, D.C. 20016. Carlson & Son, Inc.-Neale Roach, Carison & Son, Inc., Division of Koehier- Dayton, Inc., Suite 604, 1700 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Conductron Corporation-Gene Morgan, Conductron Corporation, 3475 Plym- rnth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dravo Corporation-A. M. Martinson, Dravo Corporation, Dravo Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222. FMC Corporation-Milton Spiegel, FMC Corporation, Hydrodynamics Div.- i~hicago Pump, Panorama Towers, 8155 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, Call- `ornia. LaMere Industries, Inc.-Donald P. Frankel, President, LaMere Industries, [nc., Walworth, Wisconsin 53184. Microphor, Inc.-R. Edward Burton, Microphor, Inc., P.O. Box 577, Wilhits, ~alilfornia 95490. Monogram Industries, Ine.-Philip Kowaiski, Monogram Industries, Inc., Route ~fr1, Grey Lake, Sturgis, Michigan 49091. O'Brien Associates-Robert F. O'Brien, O'Brien Associates, 800 No. Ninth street, Elkhart, Indiana 46514. Pall Corporation-Sidney Krakauer, Vice President, New Products, Pall Corpo- ration, Glen Cove, Long Island, New York. Raritan Engineering Corporation-Gordon W. Crowell, Raritan Engineering ~orporation, 1025 N. High Street, Millville, New Jersey. Research Products Manufacturing Company-E. Bayne Blankenship, Ph.D., President, Research Products Manufacturing Co., P. 0. Box 35164, Dallas, Texas r5235. Smith & Loveless-Brian L. Goodman, Director of Research, Smith & Love- ess, Lenexa, Kansas 66215. The Matthews Co.-~R. E. Reynolds, Box M. Port Clinton, Ohio. The Youngstown Welding and Engineering Company-Joseph Musial, Roy C. ~ahn, The Youngstown Welding and Engineering Company, 3700 Oakwood ~venue, Youngstown, Ohio 44509. Water and Sewage, Inc.-R. M. Brown, President, Water and Sewage, Inc., P. 0. Box 5577, Daytona Beach, Florida 32020. Wilcox-Crittenden-H. Layton Morris, Gen'l Sales Mgr., Wilcox-Crittenden, ~Iiddletown, Connecticut 0~l458. Worden Allen Co.-Frank L. Scbmit, Mgr., Worden Allen Company, Sanitaire Division, P. 0. Box 2057, 210 W. Capitol Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201. Worthington Corporation-Philip J. Koehler, Worthington Corporation 401 Washington Avenue, Harrison, New Jersey 07029. Yoemans Brothers Company-J. B. Pflaum, Sales Manager, Standard Products Division, Yoernans Brothers Company, 1999 North Ruby Street, Meirose Park, [llinois 60160. Zurn Industries, Inc-Bernard MacCabe, Zurn Industries, Inc., Erie Pennsyl- 7ania. Michigan Grand River Watershed Council-Mr. John H. Kennaugh, Executive ~ecretary, Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, 609 Prudden Building r~ansing, Michigan. CONSULTANTS Merlin E. Damon, Sanitary Engineer, Macomb County Health Department, ~Iacomb County Health Center, 43525 Elizabeth, Mount Clemens, Michigan ~8043. Albert E. Sanderson, Jr., Chief, Division of Water. Quality and Investigation, Department of Water Resources, State Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland ~1401. PAGENO="0134" 126 EXHIBIT D-NASBLA POLLUTION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the National Association of State Boating Law Administratoi has for several years been concerned with putting sewage discharge and litterin from pleasure craft into proper perspective in the overall problem of water polli tion; and WHEREAS, this concern was manifested in the appointment of a Pollutio Committee which thoroughly studied pollution from pleasure craft throughoi the country, and found the problem to be infinitesimal compared to other poll tion sources; and WHEREAS, findings of a recent study of pollution from vessels conducted b the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration are not in consonance wit the findings of the NASBLA Pollution Study Committee and appear inaccurat in several important particulars; and WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration did not coi suit with NASBLA to arrive at fairly objective appraisal of pollution from pleat ure craft and practical ways of remedying it; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 2525 to control pollution from vessels on navigabi waters has been introduced in the Congress by Senator Muskie of Maine as a r suit of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's report; and WHEREAS, state boating law administrators are deeply concerned that Fe eral legislation materializing from the findings and recommendations of the Fec eral Water Pollution Control Administration will produce different pollutio control standards for pleasure craft than those followed by many states an cause a serious set back to the uniformity in vessel pollution control laws whic NASBLA has strived to achieve; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following recommenth tions of NASBLA's Pollution Committee be sent to Secretary of the Interior lJdal the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and Senator Muskie b copy of this resolution: (1) That interested Federal agencies should consult and collaborate wit state boating law administrators individually and through the National Associ ation of State Boating Law Administrators in establishing pollution control for pleasure craft; (2) That if there is to be Federal legislation governing sewage discharge an littering from pleasure craft, such legislation should so far as is practical an consistent with Federal water quality criteria `be in harmony with NASBLA' Model Act on Sewage Disposal and Littering from Vessels; (3) That Federal vessel pollution control legislation should also recognize th uniform performance standards and testing procedures for vessel waste treat ment devices developed by the National Sanitation Foundation or ABYC o NFPA where applicable. (4) That Federal legislation pertaining to sewage discharge from pleasur craft should not preempt the field but rather should be in the nature of guidc lines to be followed by the states in the same manner as Federally approved stat boat numbering systems and state water quality criteria were established and (5) That Federal legislation should be drafted to insure maximum uniformit and reciprocity between the states and between the states and Federal Govera ment. PAGENO="0135" CHART SHOWING STATE APPROVALS OF BOAT SEWAGE TREATMENT DEVICES State Approved treatment devices Agency responsible for approving devices Testing agency Standard for maximum coliform count Arkansas Cliecmical treatment: 1. "C-Chlor Mark 5" pleasure craft unit; "C- Chlor Mark 10" commercial vessel unit; Carison & Son, 19 James P1., Metuchen, N.J. 2. "Sealco"; Wilcox-Crittenden Division; North & Judd Manufacturing Co., Middletown, Conn. 3. "Raritan Electro-Chem. Chlorinator" ("Crown Head Unit" not sccepted); Raritan Engi- neering Co., 24 East McNeil St. Millville, N.J. Incineration: 1. "Destroilet Incinerator Gas Fi~ed Toilet"; LaMere Industries, Inc., Wal- worth, Win. Holding tanks: 1. "Mono-Marine Sanitation System"; Mono- gram Industries, Inc., Marine Products Di- vision, Los Angeles, Calif. 2. Williamsburg Engineering, 8407 Monroe at Spencer St., Cincinnati, Ohio. Georgia No blanket approval of a particular device is given. Certification is made on an individual basis. In- dividual units of the following chemical treatment devices have been certified to be in compliance with the law: Chemical treatment: 1. "C--Chlor Mark 4, Mark 5, and Mark 6"; Carlson & Son. 2. "Sealca"; Wilcox-Crittenden. 3. "Raritan Electro Chemical Chlorinator" and "Crown Head"; Raritan Engineer- ing Co. Hawaii No one to date has applied for approval of a treatment device. Massachusetts None yet approved, but chemical treatment and holding tanks are recommended. Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Arkansas Approval based upon own review of plans 240 per 100 ml. (Note: Only those State Board of Health, Little Rock, Ark. and specifications of units plus accept- units which have a tank large ance of findings of Syracuse University enough to provide a retention Research Corp., Syracuse, N.Y.; Quality time of approximately 15 mm- Control Laboratory, Philadelphia, Pa.; utes are acceptable.) and official New Hampshire data. The approval of National Sanitation Founda- tion tested units will be weighed heavily, State Water Quality Control Board,47 Trin- Certification based upon inspection of units 1,000 per 100 ml. ity Ave., SW, Atlanta, Ga. 30334. under actual performance conditions on board boats. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, No raw sewage may be din- Boston, Mass. charged. PAGENO="0136" CHART SHOWING STATE APPROVALS OF BOAT SEWAGE TREATMENT DEVICES-Continued State Approved treatment devices Agency responsible for approving devices Testing agency Standard for maximum coliform count Minnesota Chemical treatment: Water Pollution Control Commission, 1. "C-Chlor Mark 5"; Carlson & Son. Minnesota Department of Health, Uni- 2. "Marine Chlorinator"; Apollco Corp., 1319 versity Campus, Minneapolis, Mien. Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul, Mien. Incineration: "Destroilet"; LaMere Industries, Inc. Holding tank: "Mono-Marine Sanitation System "and "Mono- matic Marine Sanitation System, Model 1"; Monogram Industries, Inc. Missouri Chemical treatment: Water Pollution Board, Missouri Depart- 1. "C-Chlor Mark 5"; Carlson & Son. ment of Public Health and Welfare, 112 2. "Marine Chlorinator"; Apollco Corp. West High, Post Office Box 154, Jefferson Holding tank: Tank type system; Monogram In. City, Mo. dustries, Inc. Montana Holding tanks and incinerators. Montana State Board of Health, Helena, Mont. Nevada No units have been approved to date Department of Health and Welfare, Bureau of Environmental Health, 790 Sutro St., Reno, N~v. New Hampshire I Chemical treatment: "C-Chlor Mark 5"; Carlson & New Hampshire Water Pollution Commis- Son. sion. Concord, N.H. New York None yet approved. (Holding tanks, chemical treat- New York Department of Public Health, for meet devices and incinerators are acceptable.) public health standards. New York Con- servation Department, for safety stand- ards. 1. The C-Chlor Mark 5 device was accepted The colifnrm group organisms in on tine basis of official New Hampshire effluent test samples, after data, chlorination and maceration 2. Tests on Apellco's Marine Chlorinator in a laboratory blender, shall ......~ were conducted by Ruble-Miller & not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml. ~ Associates, consulting engineers, in more than 10 percent of ~iD Duluth, Minn. the test samples, and the 3. The Destroiletwas accepted primarily on average of 10 consecutive the basis of official North Carolina daily tests shall not exceed data. 500 per 100 ml. 4 Tri,pqdaii I shnr~tnries, Inc. I rio Anpelos Calif., conducted tests for the Mono- Marine and Monomatic devices. Approval previously based upon Minnesota 240 per 100 ml. data. Hereafter, to be based upon Na- lineal Sanitatien Foundation, Ann Arbor, Mich. Montana Stste Board of Health, Helena, Mont. Own laborstory would run the tests for acceptance. Commission laboratory Yacht Safety Bureau, for safety standards and public health standards. Do, No standard has been estab- lished, but 240 mpn. has been considered. 240 per 100 ml. 1,000 per 100 ml. PAGENO="0137" North Carolina Chemical treatmont: Sanitary Engineering Division, State Board Approvalbased uponownlaboratorytesting 240 per 100 ml. 1. "C-Chlor Mark 5"; Carlaon & Son. of Health, Raleigh, N.C. 27602. plus (in the case of the Carlson colt) ac- 2. "Sealco"; Wilcox-Crittenden. ceptance of official New Hampshire data. Incineration: "Destroilet"; LaMere Industries, Inc. Holding tank: "Mono-Marine Sanitation System"; Monogram Industries, Inc. South Dakota None yet approved State Public Health Department, Pierre, Approval based upon acceptance of official Do. S. Dak. New Hampshire and Minnesota data. Tennessee Chemical treatment: 1. "Crown Head" and "Raritan Electric Chemi- Department of Public Health, Stream Pollu- Approval based upon own review of plans Do. cal Chlorinator"; Raritan Engineering Co. tion Board, 620 Cordell Hull Bldg., Nash- and specifications of units plus accept- 2. "Marine Chlorinator"; Apollco Corp. ville, Tenn. ance of official data from New Hampshire 3. "Sealco"; Wilcox-Crittendnn and other States that previously have 4. "C-Chlor Mark 6"; Carlson &Son. approved units. Tho approval of National Incineration: Sanitation Foundation will be weighed 1. "Incinolet"; Research Products, Inc., Dallas, heavily. Tex. 2. "Destroilet Incinerator Gas Fired Toilet"; LaMere Industries, Inc. Holding tank: "Mono-Marine Sanitation System"; Monogram Industries, Inc., Marine Products Division. Texas Holding tanks discharged on shore or other devices Texas State Department of Health, Austin, approved by local and State Department of Tex. Health. Wisconsin Holding tanks: 1. "Mono-Marine Sanitation System" and Wisconsin State Board of Health, Madison, Wisconsin State Board of Health, Madison, Monomatic Toilet, Models 1 and 2,"; Wis. Wis. Monogram Industries, Inc. 2. `Sanitank"; Pefco, Inc., St. Paul, Mien. Incinerating devices are also allowed. 1 After Jan. 1, 1969, discharge will no longer be permitted. PAGENO="0138" ESTIMATED COSTS, BOAT SEWAGE TREATMENT INSTALLATIONS Type of device List of price main unit Carison Division, Koehler-Dayton, Inc., Mark VI (latest version).... Chlorinator-macerator._ $189 Hose, $1.25 per foot; electrical Device 15 by 18 by 20 inches plus bottle. 50 lb Dayton, Ohio. wiring and device installation wet. Requires 30 a., at 12 v. May use existing will vary, outlet used with existing toilet. Wilcox-Crittenden Division, North & Sealed do $110, 12 volt; $130, do Device 17 by 8 by 8 inches plus bottle. 20 lb. dry, Judd Manufacturing Co., Middletown, 32 volt; $150, 110 used with existing toilet. May use existing Cone. volt, outlet. Raritan Engineering Co., MilIville, N.J...... Electrochemical chlo- do $90 do Device 13 by 8 by 15 inches plus connections and rinator. bottle. May use existing toilet outlet. 20 lb. dry. Crown Head do $250 Complete integrated unit toilet and treatment device. Replaces present toilet; uses present existing plumbing 17 by 17 by 14 inches wide. Apelico Corp., Box 238, Victoria, Minn_~. Marine chlorinator do $307 do Complete integrated unit 12 by 18 by 13 inchos high. Uses existing plumbing; replaces exist- ing toilet. Uses iodine for 100-percent kill. LaMere Industries, Walworth, Wis Destroilet Incinerator $349 Propane stowage; piping, $40 Replaces existing head. No water connections. flue; wiring will be variable Requires bottled gas system using ~ to 9~ depending on boat. lb. per day per person. 3.5 a., at 12 v. Size 15 by 23 by 20 inches high. Research Products, Dallas, Tex lncinolet do $300 (estimate) 110-v. wiring, flue connections, Replaces existing head. This is all electric unit and odor suppressor. originally for workboats or boats with 110 V. aboard; 2,200-w. heater. Monogram Industries, Los Angeles, CaliL Monomatic, model I Holding-type toilet; $275 Installation variable Size 17 by 17 by 18 inches plus connections. Re- dock discharge. places present toilet. Monomatic, model ii Holding-type toilet; dock $325 Installation varies As above, but utilizes present discharge fitting. and sea discharges. Monomarine, model XIV~ Holding tank 20 gal. $175 Installation varies considerably, Uses presently installed toilet and fittings; pats with macerator and plus tubing, tank into system. discharge pump. Monomarine, model XV.. - As above, but no dis- $105 do Uses presently installed toilet and fittings; puts charge pump. tank into system. Dockside pump-oat only. Mission-West Manufacturing Co., Sani- Sanimatic Holding-type toilet $115 Installation varies Dockside pump-out only. ware Division, Box 733, Elkhart, Ind. Ball-Hed Marine Products Co., 5219 Ball-Hed, model C Toilet with auxiliary tank $60 plus tank do Do. Sangamore Rd., Washington, D.C. Lek Manufacturing Co., Post Office Box Lek Tanks Recirculating holding $129 Simple installation from existing Uses present water closet; requires deck dock- 516, Midlothian, Ill, tank, water closet onboard. side pump pipe. American Cotton Yarns, Inc., 5825 South Taiik system Holding tank, 22 gal $115 Simple connection from present Has electric gage and for dockside pump-oat Western Ave., Chicago, Ill. water closet, only. Manufacturer Model Extras Remarks PAGENO="0139" 131 EXHIBIT E-A BILL To REGULATE THE DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE FROM RECREATIONAL WATEECRAFT AND TO PROHIBIT LITTERING OF WATERWAYS Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress hereby declares that the pm- pose of this Act is to reduce littering and disposal of untreated wastes from recreational watercraft on the navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, Congress determines that it is necessary to authorize the establishment of standards for waste disposal and to prohibit littering from recreational water- ciaft and to assist the States in initiating and implementing similar programs in the interests of uniformity of laws. I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Act, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning: (a) The term "watercraft" means any contrivance used or capable of being used for navigation upon water whether or not capable of self-propulsion, ex- cept passenger or cargo-carrying vessels subject to the Interstate Quarantine Regulations of the United States Public Health Service adopted pursuant to Title 42 United States Code §252 and §262 through §272 and Title 8 United States Code §1182(a) and (f), §1201(d) and §1224. (b) The term "sewage" means all human body wastes. (a) The term "litter" means any bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap metal, junk, paper, garbage, rubbish, or similar refuse discarded as no longer useful or useable. (d) The term "marine toilet" means any toilet on or within any watercraft to discharge waste. (e) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, association, or other entity. (f) The term "Department" means the Department of the Interior. (g) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. II. LITTERING OR POLLUTING WATER-RESTRICTIONS (a) No person shall place, throw, deposit, or discharge, or cause to be placed, thrown, deposited or discharged into navigable waters of the United States any litter, sewage, or other liquid or solid materials which render the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes. (b) It shall be unlawful to discharge, dump, deposit or throw garbage into navigable waters of the United States from a watereraft. III. MARINE TOILET5-RESTRICTIONS (a) No marine toilet on any watercraft used or operated upon navigable waters of the United States shall be operated so as to discharge any untreated sewage into said waters directly or indirectly. (b) No person owning or operating a watercraft with a marine toilet shall use, or permit the use of, such toilet on navigable waters of the United States, unless the toilet is equipped with facilities that will adequately treat, hold, incinerate or otherwise handle sewage in a manner that is capable of prevent- ing water pollution. (a) No container of sewage shall be placed, left, discharged or caused to be placed, left or discharged in or near any navigable waters of the United States by any person at any time. IV. MARINE TOILETS-POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES (a) After the effective date of this Act every marine toilet on watercraft used or operated upon navigable waters of the United States shall be equipped with a suitable pollution control device in operating condition. (b) Types of pollution control devices that are acceptable for purposes of this Act are: (1) Facilities that macerate or grind sewage solids and which, by chlorination or other means, disinfect the remnants before discharge into the water. PAGENO="0140" 132 (2) Holding tanks which retain toilet wastes for disposal at dockside or on-shore pumping facilities or in deep waters away from shore. (3) Incinerating type devices which reduce toilet wastes to ash. (4) Any other device that is tested by a recognized testing laboratory and de- termined to be effective in arresting the possibility of pollution from sewage pass- ing into or through marine toilets. V. MARINE TOILETS-CHEMICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES-STANDARDS (a.) Every chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be securely affixed to the interior discharge opening of a marine toilet, and all sewage passing into or through such toilet shall pass solely through such treatment facility. (b) Sewage passing through a marine toilet equipped with a chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be deemed untreated unless the effluent meets treatment standards promulgated by the Secretary who is hereby empowered to adopt said standards. (c) The chlorinator or chemical treatment facility shall be of a type which functions automatically with the operation of the marine toilet, does not depend on septic action as part of its treatment, is easy to clean and maintain, and does not permit the escape of dangerous gases or obnoxious odors. (d) The disinfecting agent used in the facility shall be of a kind that does not necessitate too frequent replenishment, is easily obtainable, and when discharged as a part of the effluent is not toxic to humans, fish or wildlife. VI. MARINE TOILETS-STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURERS OF POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES (a) The Secretary is empowered to adopt appropriate standards and imple- menting regulations for the design, construction and performance of marine toilet retention, incineration and chemical treatment devices. (b) Every manufacture of a marine toilet pollution control device described In this Act shall certify to the Department in writing that his product meets the standards set forth in this Act or in any implementing regulations adopted by the Department. Every such certified statement shall be accompanied by a test report showing that the product meets the prescribed standards. It shall be un- lawful to sell or to offer for sale in interstate commerce any marine toilet pollu- tion control device that has not been so certified and approved by the Department. VII. CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION In carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the Secretary shall consult with agencies, committees and organizations having an interest in recreational boating and pollution control. vur. ON-SHORE FACILITIES The owner or whoever is lawfully vested with the possession, management and control of a marina or other facility located upon or adjacent to a navigable water of the United States and used by watercraft for launching, docking, moor- ing and related purposes shall be required to have trash receptacles or similar devices designed for the depositing of trash and refuse at locations where they can be conveniently used by watercraft occupants. If he shall offer boat service facilities to toilet equipped boats he shall also be required to provide as part of such services a marine toilet retention tank pump-out facility. IX. EDUCATION The Department is hereby authorized to undertake and to enlist the support and cooperation of all agencies, political subdivisions, and organizations in the conduct of a public educational program designed to inform the public of the undesirability of depositing trash, litter, and other materials in navigable waters of the United States and of the penalties provided by this Act for such action, and use funds provided by congress for this purpose. The Department is further authorized to utilize all means of communication in the conduct of this program. X. ENFORCEMENT All watercraft located upon navigable waters of the United States shall be subject to inspection by the Department or any lawfully designated agent or in- PAGENO="0141" 133 spector thereof for the purpose of determining whether such watercraft is equipped in compliance herewith. The Department is further authorized to in- spect marinas or other waterside public facilities used by watercraft for launch- ing, docking or mooring purposes to determine whether they are equipped with trash receptacles and/or sewage disposal equipment. XI. RULES AND REGULATIONS The Secretary of the Department is hereby authorized and empowered to make, adopt, promulgate, amend and repeal all rules and regulations neces- sary, or convenient for the carrying out of duties and obligations and powers conferred on the Department by this Act, in accord with the Federal Adminis- trative Procedure Act. XII. FILING OF REGULATIONS A copy of the regulations adopted pursuant to this Act and any of the amend- ments thereto, shall be filed in the office of the Department and shall be pub- [ished by `the Department in a convenient form. XIII. PENALTIES (a) Every manufacturer of a marine toilet pollution control device who violates Section 6 of this Act or any regulations adopted by the Department pursuant thereto shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished with a fine of not more than $10,000. (b) Any person who violates any other provision of this Act or regulations of the Department adopted pursuant thereto shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor and upon conviction shall be punished with a fine of not more than ~1,000, or by imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. XIV. STATE WATERCRAFT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS The Secretary shall approve State pollution control programs designed to regu- late the disposal of sewage from recreational watercraft and prevent littering of waterways. Such approval shall vest the State with primary implementation md enforcement of recreational watercraft pollution control programs on navi- gable waters of the United States under concurrent jurisdiction of the State. In approving a State program the Secretary shall require: (a) That State law or regulation include provisions restricting littering and polluting of waterways and standards for marine toilet pollution control devices in conformity with provisions of this Act and standards and regulations promul- ~ated hereunder by the Secretary. (b) That appropriate enforcement provisions are included in the State law or regulation including the name of the enforcing agency. (a) That State approval testing procedures for watercraft w-aste disposal levices are in conformity with this Act and regulations promulgated hereunder. (d) In the use of devices permitting discharge after treatment in navigable waters of the United States, such treated discharge must meet Water Quality Control Act standards for said navigable waters of the United States. (a) That the State shall recognize the use of a marine toilet pollution control ~Ievice approved by another State under a program approved by the Secretary, for a period of at least ninety days. Whenever the Secretary determines that a State is not administering its mpproved pollution control program for recreational watercraft in accordance vith the requirements of this section he may withdraw such approval. The secretary shall not withdraw his approval of a State watercraft pollution con- ~rol program until he has given notice in writing to the State setting forth ~pecifically wherein the State has failed to maintain such requirements and a ~orrective period of ninety days thereafter has expired without such requirements being met. XV. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the "Recreational Watercraft Pollution Control Act Df 1968." Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am here today on behalf of the associa- bion to support, in principle, the two bills which are aimed at the ~ontrol of pollution from pleasure craft and other vessels. PAGENO="0142" 134 PLEASURE CRAFT AND COMMERCIAL VESSELS POSE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS `We do have some suggestions. The basic one is to sort of separate, in either that bill or in a separate bill, the sections dealing with pollu- tion from pleasure craft and the sections dealing with pollution from commercial vessels. There are a number of very difficult problems which arise between the two types of craft; one, commercial vessels are rarely found in the inland waterways of the United States, and generally are on the navigable waters, whereas the pleasure craft are found in the inland waters of the United States and not so much on the navigable waters. That is one reason, Mr. Chairman. MODEL LAW ON PLEASURE CRAFT POLLUTION The other reason we have outlined in the statement. They in- clude the one section of the bill that regulates ballast, but in generally our suggestion is that the Federal law which governs pollution from pleasure craft adopt the guidelines set out by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, which is a nationwide associa- tion of State boating law officials, and back 4 years ago, in 1963, they began work on a model pollution statute to govern the pleasure craft. That statute, I might add, has been adopted in a number of States, including New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia, and some other States are about to follow suit. We are really recommending that that statue, with certain modifica- tions, be adopted by the Federal Government, by the Federal Legis- lature, that it provide an incentive to the States to adopt the same statute with certain modifications and if the State would do so, then the State would have primary jurisdiction over the navigable and non- navigable waters of the State, to regulate this form of pollution from pleasure craft. This is not unique, I might say, Mr. Chairman. The Boating Act of 1958, which is the act which gives the States most of their control over licensing of boats and other types of pleas- ure craft equipment, vested primary jurisdiction in the Federal Gov- ernment unless the States adopted the principles of the Boating Act within a reasonable period of time. Forty-seven States did adopt that act and, as a consequence, in those 47 States there are concurrent juris- dictions with the Federal Government on the navigable waters and exclusive State jurisdiction on the nonnavigable waters. The principle behind that bill which we also feel should be the prin- ciple behind this bill is that we do get uniformity of laws and the requirements for pollution control devices in one State will be the same as those in the other State, but the primary jurisdiction for enforcing those requirements would rest with the State Governments and not the Federal Government. That, basically, Mr. Chairman, is the sum and substance of our testimony. I do not think it is necessary to go into other details. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Boggs. Mr. Chairman, did you have some questions? PAGENO="0143" 135 Mr. BLATNITC. No questions. I do appreciate your testimony. WTe are very interested in this small boating problem in Minnesota, of course; and many other States-Michigan, Wisconsin-particularly the growth of boating which has just been incredible in recent years. We first ran across it in connection with the highway program, trying to anticipate, back in 1955, what would be the mobility, the needs, the recreational uses, demands, more time and more money, and we find that the sale of camping equipment and boating and motor boats and water skiing equipment and fishing gear, trailers, house trailers behind automobiles, have exceeded any forecast by enormous amounts, and it is getting to be a problem of lakes that are overcrowded, getting to be fouled up. And to get uniformity is a problem. If we leave it to the States, if you leave it all to the States, you get relief to some degree in some States. You have no assurance that you would have an adequate sort of minimum throughout the country. STATE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES TO ALL WATERS POSSIBLE Mr. BOGGS. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the Federal Govern- ment really does not have jurisdiction over some of the inland waters of the States, and they cannot really enforce the Federal statute on those waters. That is why I think the Boating Act has worked so well. The States, in effect, adopted the Federal legislation throughout. 1-lad they not adopted that act, the Federal Government would have at least maintained primary jurisdiction over the navigable waters. Mr. BLATNIK. On page 8, Mr. Boggs, you mentioned it would be a mistake, in your opinion, to give any Federal agency absolute author- ity to set standards or to approve devices to control waste disposal from watercraft. There has to be close collaboration between the Fed- eral Government and the States and local agencies responsible for water pollution control, public health, and boating law enforcement. Any rules or regulations established by `Washington, without such collaboration, would make matters ~~orse for boaters, et cetera. Could you clarify that just a little bit more? I think in essence I would agree with you, again have absolute and final authority and complete authority in a Federal agency, yet we ought to have something more than just admonishing these States to collaborate and work with the Federal Government. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are suggesting is that the Federal Government adopt a pollution standard for a pleasure craft very similar to the one set forth in your bill, and the other bill introduced by Mr. Fallon. are secondly saying that the standaids suggested by the Federal Government can really only apply to the navigable waters of the United States and to the manufacturers of the devices which the Sec- retary of the Interior can regulate. That still leaves a third area, the nonnavigable waters on which most of your pleasure craft operate, which the Federal jurisdiction does not reach by an act. We are suggesting that the States would act and accept the Federal standards if they were given an incentive to do so, and that incentive, we maintain, is the concurrent jurisdiction over the navigable waters of their State to control pollution in those waters as well. This, as I say, has worked in the Boating Act. PAGENO="0144" 136 WIDE CONSULTATION URGED Finally, all we are saying here is that we would hope that the Secre- tary of Interior and we hope that the legislative intent would show the Secretary of Interior that he should consult not just with the standard pollution experts who are really familiar with devices and the types of affluent control that could be obtained through devices, but also with the boaters and State boating law officials that have to deal with the practical problems arising from pleasure craft. I think that is all that is intended to mean. Mr. BLATNIK. That is all. Thank you. Mr. MOEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Boggs, for being here today. I am interested in this statement of yours. I must say I did enjoy that por- tion of your statement, particularly on page 5 where you referred to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration report, that 50 percent of the sailboats under 15 feet in length have toilets. I must say that I like your conclusion there, that if this were the case, boaters should worry more about indecent exposure than Pollution. It is a little difficult to understand some of the reports of these agen- cies, but your statement is a classic! ADOPTION OF MODEL LAW BY STATES With regard to the uniform law developed by the National Associa- tion of State Boating Laws, how many States do you say have it now? Mr. BOGGS. Mr. McEwen, four States have currently passed the law, including New York, Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina. I think it is now pending in two State Legislatures, and about four or five others that conducted extensive hearings on the law which could he in the process of enacting it. Mr. MOEWEN. Including my State of New York? Mr. BOGGS. Yes, it has. It has only been in the last 2 years that the group has really encouraged enactment., because it took them that long to derive a standard which they considered adequate to meet most States. In other words, they went to the National Sanitation Foundation and tried to develop an affluent standard that would apply to all de- vices, and as long as the amount of affluent that went into the water was acceptable, then the device was also safe in terms of the boat structure and would be acceptable. It took them quite a while to develop the standard. Once they felt they were about to develop one, then they started pushing the model act in most of the legislatures. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee would give some real consideration to this model act Mr. Boggs speaks of. I think we should consider the possibility of incorporating it into our Federal law. Now, as I understand it, this act was developed by and approved by such organizations as the Outboard Boating Club of America, the National Boating Federation, and it is approved by the National Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. I know, Mr. Boggs, from personal experience, the overlapping jurisdictions, in the water where I do my recreational boating, I PAGENO="0145" 137 have a boarding inspection by the New York State Police, the Coast Guard and the local sheriff. If we are going to have two different stand- ards. I can see where there is going to be a lot of problems. Mr. MCCARTHY. What do you carry in your boat, anyway? Mr. MCEWEN. Mostly bait and the fish I catch; but I think, Mr. Boggs, that we owe you our thanks here for bringing this to our atten- tion, and I, for one, shall give careful consideration to this. Can you tell us why the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin- istration people have rejected, if they have, this uniform Act, or the requirements of it? FEDERAL LAW NEEDED-MODEL LAW APPROACH REFERRED Mr. BOGGS. I would not say, Mr. McEwen, they have rejected it. They proposed most of the recommendations which are embodied in the bill which Ohairman Blatnik produced; and, as I say, we find no real fault with those suggestions. We do feel, however, that the State model Act approach is a preferable approach, simply because it does include all waters of the State. Secondly, we do feel that a Federal statute is required because we have learned from experience tha1~ it will take a number of years for all the States to adopt the model Act, and you will not have uniformity unless there is an impetus from the Federal Government. What the Boating Industry Association and the Water Pollution Control Administration have had disagreement about is the level of the problem resulting from small vessel pollution. They have frankly, we feel, misused statistics, and even quoted statistics we cannot verfy, to indicate that the problem is far more severe than we maintain it is. That does not mean we think the problem cannot be rectified. Mr. MCEWEN. 1 quite agree with you. Mr. Bocos. I might say, and I do not mean to criticize the adminis- tration, but there was considerable lack of communication between the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, their Washington office, and the various State boating groups. There was pretty good communication between regional offices of the administration and those State groups, but there seems to be some loss in the transmittal of the report between those regional groups and the final report that came out of Washington. Mr. MCEWEN. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administra- tion is dealing with many, many facets of this whole problem of pol- lution control and here what you seek to do is, one, a unique situation with small pleasure craft which the State administers, the people who are pleasure boaters, their organizations, the manufacturers of these boats all worked, I take it, to develop this uniform law. Am I correct in that regard? Mr. I3ooos. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. This is a refinement of the thinking of the most knowledgeable in this field. I certainly for one shall give it the weight that I think it is due. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. McEwen, we tried to do an exhibit. We tried to draft a legislative proposal which combines the recommendations of the Federal statute with those State recommendatior~s, and I would ap- preciate it if you would look into that one. 04-376-OS-------iO PAGENO="0146" 138 Mr. MCEWEN. What exhibit is that? Mr. BOGGS. That is our exhibit E. Mr. MCEWEN. I certainly shall. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you very much, Tom. We appreciate your coming and making this contribution. Mr. BOGGS. Thank you, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Our final witness is Mr. Jack Coffey, of the Cham- ber of Commerce of the United States. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. COFFEY, SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION ADVISORY PANEL, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. COFFEY. Mr. Chairman, I have some brief attachments that I refer to in my statement. I would like to have them submitted at the end of my statement for the record. Mr. MCCARTHY. Very well. We will insert them following the con- clusion of your testimony. Mr. COFFEY. I am John J. Coffey, secretary to the environmental pollution advisory panel of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The national chamber appreciates this opportunity to com- ment on the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, specifically S. 2760, H.R. 15906 and H.R. 15907. Water is our most important natural resource. The demand for water is ever increasing, while the supply remains constant. To re- solve the conflict between supply and demand, effective water manage- ment programs need to be established and directed toward increasing the uses which man can make of his available, water supply. This House Committee on Public Works recognized the need for effective water management in 1965 when it sponsored and helped pass the Water Quality Act. The national chamber was pleased to support such a well-reasoned approach to our Nation's water prob- lems. The Water Quality Act provided that the States should set water quality standards for their interstate waters, such quality stancE- ards to be based upon the uses to be made of those waters. These uses were to be determined only after a series of public hearings where all interested parties could present their views. State standards set in accordance with this procedure were then subject to review by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welf are-since enactment, this authority has been transferred to the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of this review by the Secretary was to assure that the State standards of quality would serve the purposes of the act and that they would he consistent with the particular water uses deter- mined by the State. In 1966, in an effort to speed the Nation's pollution abatement efforts, this committee recommended an increased grant program to States, municipalities, and regional agencies for the construction of needed treatment works. This recommendation was embodied in the Clean Water Restoration Act, passed in 1966, which became Pub- lic Law 89-753. This law also amended the existing Oil Pollution Act of 1924. \~Te have brought this legislation history to mind because it is most important to view the currently proposed legislation and present pro- PAGENO="0147" 139 grain administration within the framework of the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration Act. POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES rile first area of concern in the proposed legislation before this com- mittee is oil pollution. The national chamber supports in concept the need for stronger authority to deal with pollution arising from the discharge of oil from vessels, but as recently as February of this year the national chamber's board of directors reiterated opposition to the delegation of control over all oil discharges from shore installations to any Federal agency or department. While we will leave to the oil industry experts the discussion of the specific provisions necessary to achieve the control of oil pollution arising from vessels, we would like to comment briefly on the proposed bills, S. 2760 and H.R. 15906, as they relate to shore facilities. The definitions contained in S. 2760 can be interpreted so as to give to the Secretary of the Interior control over all discharges from any type of industrial plant. By defining "oil" as "~ * * oil mixed with other matter"-a definition not used in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924-and by placing any shore installation, including an industrial plant, which uses oil under the direct authority of the Secretary of the Interior, this bill would, in effect, bypass the responsibility of the State pollution control authorities which this committee recognized and reinforced in the Water Quality Act of 1965. Several States whose beaches have been soiled have been vocal in their urgings that the laws dealing with oil pollution from vessels be strengthened. Yet these States do not clamor for more control over oil discharges from shore installations. The reason is obvious-the States have effective laws to deal with shore facilities. Most of these laws deal with "visible oil"-a standard far more stringent than any contemplated for oil discharges from vessels. H.R. 15906 would expand this concept of Federal control over the discharges from shore installations to materials other than oil, further compounding the apparent sham being made of the `Water Quality Act of 1965. If, as this committee has repeatedly stressed, States do have the primary responsibility and right to prevent and control water pollution-and this is the Federal law, and it includes all potential pollutants including oil-then this committee should delete those portions of S. 2760 and H.R. 15906 which relate to discharges from shore facilities. LAKE POLLUTION-ACID AND OTHER MINE DRAINAGE In addition to oil pollution, S. 2760 contains two other amend- ments to the Federal `Water Pollution Control Act, dealing with research and demonstration projects to control and prevent pollution of lakes and to control acid and other mine water pollution. Sections 5(a) and 6(b) of the present law appear to provide adequate authority for research and demonstration projects in either of these areas. Sup- port of these two amendments by the Federal `Water Pollution Control Administration can only be considered an excuse for their previous lack of work in these two areas. PAGENO="0148" 140 ADDITIONAL METHOD OF FINANCING WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION `With regard to the new grant financing plan proposed by H.R. 15907, the national chamber is not only opposed to several specifics of the proposal-the elimination of the reimbursement provision of the Federal MTater Pollution Control Act, the limitation of the new program to cities of at least 125,000 people, the need for consistency with an area comprehensive plan-but is also opposed to the new financing plan in concept. In effect, each year this plan continues, it would create an ever- increasing "floor" in the appropriation level of this program for a period of up to 30 years. Periodic congressional review of appropri- ations, considered in the light of the then-existing priorities, would be a more effective method of obtaining the maximum benefit from every Federal dollar spent not only in the water pollution field. hut in every area of Government expenditure. ADMINISTRATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM Before concluding this presentation, we would like to comment on the current administration of the State water quality standards program. The national chamber is extremely concerned over the legality and enforceability of the water quality standards program, as it is pres- ently being administered, and as an engineer, I am appalled at the Department of the Interior's disregard for the professional manner in which the States have developed water quality standards and im- plementations plans. In August of 1967, when the Secretary announced the approval of several States' standards, he noted that: The most significant single thing about the standards that I have approved is that they call for a minimum of secondary treatment for all municipal wastes and a comparable degree of treatment for all wastes. This statement implied that a minimum of secondary treatment for all wastes, regardless of the quality and characteristics of the receiving waters, would be a prerequisite for approval of any State's water quality standards. This was substantiated in the following months by reports from our members in many States on the progress of their State's standards through the Secretary's approval process. In an attempt to clarify the nebulous phrase "comparable degree of treatment," James Watt, of the national chamber staff wrote to the then Department of Interior Assistant Secretary DiLuzio on Novem- ber 8, 1967, for the Department's official interpretation of the phrase. To quote Mr. Watt: The interpretation of the phrase "comparable degree of treatment" has caused much concern in the business community. Does this phrase imply the actual construction of a secondary treatment facility? Does it imply that an industrial waste effluent should have a quality a's high as an effluent from a municipal secondary treatment plant? Does this phrase imply a certain percentage reduc- tion of waste load regardless of the quality of the receiving water body? After a long delay, Secretary DiLuzio, on December 29, 1967, an- swered that "comparable degree of treatment" could mean any or all PAGENO="0149" 141 of above definitions, depending upon the interpretation which State or Federal officials choose to use on any occasion. The closing para- graph of Secretary DiLuzio's reply merits special attent~on: A high degree of waste treatment or control should implement our goal of preventing water quality degradation down to some limiting value required for specific water uses. It will also meet Secretary Udall's goal of making water as clean as possible, not unclean as possible. Here we can see the beginning of what is now called the nondegrada- tion policy which Secretary TJdall announced publicly on February 8, 1968. We will return to this problem shortly. On December 13, 1967, prior to Secretary DiLuzio's reply, James Watt addressed the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollu- tion Control Administrators at its annual meeting in Hartford, Conn., concerning the enforceability of a blanket secondary treatment re- quirement, Mr. Watt remarked: If your State's legislation calls for a program to assure acceptable water quality, you, as the administrator of the program, will have to show that the discharges are damaging that quality. Whether or not the alleged offender- municipality or industrial plant-does or does not have a secondary treatment facility is not the material issue. If the court finds that the water quality is not im- paired by the waste discharged, the standards which include a requirement for secondary treatment could be thrown out, even though approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Thus, the efforts to implement a meaningful water pollution control program would be set back for an indefinite period of time. We cannot afford this risk. We need a meaningful and a determined program that will secure for ourselves and future generations a desirable quality of water. The National Chamber's concern over the enforceability of the standards modified and approved by the Secretary was heightened in January by letters sent by the Secretary to the Governors of several States. The letters to Governor George Romney of Michigan, and Governor Lurleen Wallace, of Alabama, spelled out in detail the non- degradation policy and stated that approval of all State standards was conditional upon the inclusion of a nondegradation statement. Soon after this, the Secretary made public the nondegradation policy, indicating that even those 10 States whose approval he had previously announced would have to resubniit their standards for the inclusion of a nondegradation statement. It was now obvious that the Secretary was playing one State off against another so that he could achieve his goal of making water as clean as possible and, in addition, make the water quality standards Federal standards. If this committee will recall the legislative history of the Water Quality Act of 1965, both of these principles were pres- ent in the original administration bill, but were rejected by this coin- mnittee and not included in the final version of the bill. This nondeg- radation policy of Secretary Tidall has set the stage for a procedure which Congress has expressly rejected-"treatment for treatment's sake" to make waters "as clean as possible." Many States are resisting the Secretary's demands. The national chamber, serving as a clearinghouse for information on this subject, has distributed copies of correspondence between Secretary Tidall and Governors Ronmey, Rhodes of Ohio, Wallace, and Love of Colorado. We hope that the full text of these letters will be included in the rec- ord. 1-lowever, some of the comments made by Governors Love and Rhodes on the nondegradation statement are so notable that we want to quote them at this time. PAGENO="0150" 142 Governor Love said: Colorado does not feel that any State should be asked to give to a Federal agency or department the authority to control the economic growth and devel- opment of that State. As we interpret this statement, this is exactly what we feel you are asking us to do. WTe strongly feel that the economic growth and development of any State should be within the prerogatives of that State and that State and that State alone. We feel that to carry out such a policy is in direct opposition to section 1(c) of the Federal Water Quality Act which states: `Nothing in this Act shall be `construed as impairing nor in any manner affect- ing any right or jurisdiction of the States in respect to the waters, including boundary waters, of such States." Governor Rhodes commented: Your [Secretary Udall] suggested inclusion of the Department of the Interior as an agency for the enforcement of Ohio water quality standards appears to call for a legally impossible delegation of authority by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board. In order to resolve the legal questions involved in both the secondary treatment requirement and nondegradation policy, and to restore some reasonableness of the Federal water quality program, the national chamber, on behalf of many member State and national associations, sought an opinion from the law firm of Covington & Burling to define more clearly the role of the National and State governments and the obligation of water users under the applicable laws. Summarizing its findings, the legal opinion of Covington & Burling states: The Secretary has no authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965, to insist that a State include in its water quality standards applicable to interstate waters either an effluent standard-such as an absolute requirement of secondary treatment or its equiv- alent-or a requirement that waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards will be maintained at their existing high quality. It is the national chamber's desire, and the desire of many State officials, that there be a reorientation of the current program admm- istration so that the legal requirements and intent of the Water Quality Act of 1965 be fulfilled. The States, through their adoption of State pollution control laws and State water quality standards, have expressed their desire to work within the framework of the Water Quality Act, and to pursue the goals stated in that act. The national chamber urges that the States be allowed to pursue those goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARThY. Thank you, Mr. Coffey. Mr. Blatnik, any questions? Mr. BLATNIK. No questions. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Coffey, I want to thank you for that fine state- ment. There were some exhibits that you wanted to put into the record. Mr. COFFEY. That would be the letters of the Governors and the memorandum from Covington & Burling. Mr. MCEWEN. The letters of the Governors and the legal memoran- dum from your attorneys here in Washington? Mr. COFFEY. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that they be incorporated and made a part of the record. (Letters and memorandums referred to may be found on p. 152.) PAGENO="0151" 143 COVINGTON & BURLING OPINION ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS- AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Coffey, the opinion of Covington & Burling, are they saying that the Secretary has no authority to command and estab- lish standards on interstate streams? Mr. COFFEY. No, if the State fails to act, he has that authority. What they are saying is that he has no authority to make a blanket recommendation over and above what the States have legally adopted under their State laws and under the Federal Water Quality Act. To do so without public hearings would, in my opinion, and in theirs, be illegal under the present act. Any revision in a State standard that has been submitted would re- quire a new set of public hearings to justify any changes. He would have to go back under the revision authority contained in the Federal Water Quality Act. Mr. SULLIVAN. In other words, what you are saying is that the Secre- tary is going to tell the State to make these changes without following the Water Pollution `Control Act of 1965? Mr. COFFEY. That is right. Mr. SULLIVAN. In essence, that is what this opinion means? Mr. COFFEY. Yes, sir. NONDEGRADATION POLICY Mr. SULLIVAN. Can you explain a bit what degradation means? Mr. COFFEY. What it means in essence is that the water, the quality, the date those State standards are approved by the Secretary shall not be lowered in quality. There are other parts to his nondegradation policy, such as the reference Governor Love made, such as the economic development of the State which, in effect, he would have in his authority of approving any new or increased source of potential pollution within a State. Mr. SULLIVAN. Intrastate? Mr. COFFEY. Yes. Mr. SULLIVAN. You are talking about the testimony he gave this morning when he cited Alaska as an example? Mr. COFFEY. Yes. Mr. SULLIVAN. As a type of State they could set up in intrastate operation. Mr. COFFEY. But according to his nondegradation policy, the Secre- tary of Interior would determine whether such a breach of the nondegradation policy, but not a breach of the State's water quality standards would be allowed. SECONDARY TREATMENT-"COMpARABLE DEGREE OF TREATMENT" REQUII~EMENT Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Coffey, on page 4, I guess you are quoting a member of your staff wrote to Assistant Secretary DiLuzio, and Mr. Watt said: PAGENO="0152" 144 The interpretation of the phrase "comparable degree of treatment" has caused much concern in the business community. I-lie says: "Does this phrase imply the actual construction of a secondary treatment facility? Does it imply that an industrial waste effluent should have a quality as high as an effluent from a municipal secondary treatment plant? Does this phrase imply a certain percent- age reduction of waste load regardless of the quality of the receiving water body?" Then you go on to say that Secretary DiLuzio answered that "com- parable degree of treatment" could mean any or all of above defini- tions, depending upon - the interpretation which State or Federal officials choose to use on any occasion. Has there been any further answer or clarification to that? Mr. COFFEY. No, sir; I have his answer here. I would like to include in the record also, if you would like. Mr. MCEWEN. Could we have that? Mr. COFFEY. That is a copy of the correspondence that was between Mr. Watt and Secretary DiLuzio. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, it isso ordered. (Correspondence follows:) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington., D.C., November 8, 1967. Mr. FRANK C. DiLuzio, Assistant Secretary, Water Pollution Control, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. DEAR SECRETARY DiLuzio: On August 9, 1967, Secretary Udall appeared before the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to relate the progress of the federal water pollution control effort. In discussing the approval of state water quality standards, he remarked: "The most significant single thing about the standards that I have approved is that they call for a minimum of secondary treatment for all municipal wastes and a comparable degree of treatment for industrial wastes." The interpretation of the phrase "comparable degree of treatment" has caused much concern in the business community. Does this phrase imply the actual construction of a secondary treatment facility? Does it imply that an industrial waste effluent should have a quality as high as the effluent from a municipal secondary treatment plant? Does this phrase imply a certain percentage reduc- tion in wasteload, regardless of the quality of the receiving water body? These questions reflect the uncertainty of the business community, and the need for a clarification from your office, so that the correct interpretation of this phrase may be applied. Sincerely, JAMES G. WATT, Secretary, Natural Resources Committee. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., December 29, 1967. Mr. JAMES G. WATT, Secretary, Natural Resources Committee, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WATT: Following are my comments on the questions you raised in ~ our November 8. 1967, letter concerning definitions of degree of treatment in relation to compliance with water quality standards. Policy statement Number 8 in the "Guidelines for Establishing Water Quality Standards for Interstate Waters" includes the following statements: (1) "No standard will be approved which allows any wastes amenable to treatment or PAGENO="0153" 145 control to be discharged into any interstate water without treatment or control regardless of the water quality criteria and water use or uses adopted ;" and (2) no standard will be approved which does not require all wastes . . . to receive the best practicable treatment or control unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser degree of treatment or control will provide for water quality enhancement commensurate with proposed present and future water uses." The intent of this and other policy statements is to meet the requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, which is to enhance the quality of water. In this country, secondary treatment has become the conven- tionally accepted level of treatment necessary to protect present and future water uses and yet meet the test of economic and technical feasibility. It is usually the degree of treatnient implied in the phrase-"best practicable treatment." Most water pollution control officials can agree on a general definition for sec- ondary treatment as applied to municipal wastes. It is more difficult, however, to get a concensus on a precise definition for industrial wastes. Thus, the use of phrases like "comparable degree of treatment" or "equivalent high degree of treatment." Recognizing the vast differences in the characteristics of industrial wastes, the definition of acceptable treatment will have to be applied with reason and tailored to the amenability of specific wastes to receive treatment. In all cases, the test of technical and economic feasibility must be met. The standards as adopted by the States often place industrial biodegradable wastes in the same category as municipal sewage. When acceptable treatment is defined numerically for these wastes it often is expressed as at least 80 to 90 per- ent removal of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The States and this De- partment recognize that some highly concentrated organic industrial wastes may require removal efficiencies exceeding the 80 to 90 percent figure. Acceptable removal efficiencies for non-biodegradable wastes have not been de- fined by the States nor have quantitive guidelines been issued by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The thrust of pollution abatement ef- forts in the past has been usually directed at stream standards, not effluent standards. To meet drinking water or aquatic life protection standards this may have required removal efficiencies of certain inorganic pollutants that exceeded the 80 to 90 percent values. This is particularly true for materials such as heavy metals and cyanide. These materials and organic compounds such as phenols can seriously impair the usefulness of water resources, when present in very small quantities. In summary, the phrase "comparable degree of treatment" will be interpreted reasonably by State and Federal water pollution control officials. It will take into account feasible technology and economics. In many instances the requirement for this degree of treatment will mean the construction of conventional secondary treatment facilities. Furthermore, in the case of biodegradable waste, it may mean effluent quality similar to that for municipal effluents (a few States have expressed their requirements in this fashion). Also, in some instances, it will mean in-plant process controls coupled, if necessary, with waste treatment. A high degree of waste treatment or control should implement our goal of pre- venting water quality degradation down to some limiting value required for specific water uses. It will also meet Secretary Ildall's goal of making water as clean as possible, not unclean as possible. Sincerely yours, FRANK C. DrLuzio, Assistant secretary of the Interior. TAX INCENTIvES FOR INDIJSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES, BY JAMES G. WATT Present water pollution control programs make wise corporate decisions extremely difficult. Before an executive can commit the resources of a corpora- tion for waste treatment facilities, he needs to know how much water treat- ment is necessary to assure the desired water quality and how soon the facil- ities must be in operation. Can he be sure of what the government requirements will be tomorrow, next year, or two years from now? He needs to know the various alternatives available for financing the pollution control and abatement facilities. Can he anticipate what financial "benefits" might be made available if he were to wait for Congress to act? 1 Secretary. Natural Resources Committee and Environmental Pollution Advisory Panel. Community and Regional Resource Develonment Group. Chamber of Commerce of the TTp~ted Stat pa. I61~ H St"eet. NW.. Washington. D.C. 20006. Presented to the Association of State aid Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators at its Annual Meeting in Hartford, Connecticut. on December 13, 1967. PAGENO="0154" 146 Frustrating questions such as these make today's program timely and valuable. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the question of "Tax Incentives for Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities." The best incentives that could be provided would be the establishment of meaningful and reasonable water quality standards and the adoption of a realis- tic timetable for their implementation. These are the objectives of the Water Quality Act of 1965 as set forth in the Congressional Committee reports and the floor debate which accompanied the passage of the Act. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests some state and interstate water quality standards approved by the Secretary of Interior include requirements which would bypass the water quality criteria defined at the public hearings. When Congress enacted the Water Quality Act of 1965, it delegated to the Secretary extensive authority to implement a program that would assure the adoption of meaningful and effective state water quality control programs. The purpose of these state programs is to "enhance the quality and value" of our interstate water resources for the benefit of the "public health and welfare." It was the quality of the waters of the nation that was of concern to the mem- bers of Congress. Unfortunately, it appears as if the Secretary of Interior is more interested in requiring secondary treatment of all waste waters, as a matter of policy, irrespective of quality requirements. In many instances, the difference between primary and secondary treatment will not be significant to the receiving waters. In such cases, it is poor public policy to require the additional cost of secondary treatment. Treatment for treatment's sake is a luxury we cannot afford when we are confronted with a war in Viet Nam, slums, unemployment, and a multitude of domestic problems, plus a hungry world. On August 9, 1967, Secretary Udall appeared before the Senate Public Works' Subcommittees on Air and Water Pollution to relate the progress of the Federal water pollution c ntrol effort. In discussing the approval of state water quality standards, he remarked: "The most significant single thing about the standards that I have approved is that they call for a minimum of secondary treatment for all municipal wastes and a comparable degree of treatment for industrial wastes." November 8, on behalf of the National Chambei, I wrote to Assistant Secre- tary for Water Pollution Control, Frank C. DiLuzio, and asked if he would clarify those remarks so the business community could make appropriate plans. Our letter stated, "The interpretation of the phase `comparable degree of treat- ment' has caused much concern in the business community. Does this phrase imply the actual construction of a secondary treatment facility? Does it imply that an industrial waste effluent should have a quality as high as an effluent from a municipal secondary treatment plant? Does this phrase imply a certain percentage reduction of waste load regardless of the quality of the receiving water body?" Unfortunately, I have not received an answer to that November 8 letter, and thus am unable to report to you how the Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has interpreted the statement of Secretary TJdall. The interpretation and application of Secretary Udall's statement could con- ceivably cause us many problems in the months ahead. In fact, trouble has already started. States which have agreed to the Secretary's demands are now experiencing difficulty in defining what constitutes the equivalent of secondary treatment for industrial waste. If your state's legislation calls for a program to assure acceptable water quality, you, as administrator of the program, will have to show that the discharges are damaging that quality. Whether or not the alledged offender (muncipailty or industrial plant) does or does not have a secondary treatment facility is not the material issue. If the court finds that the water quality is not impaired by the waste discharged, the standards which include a requirement for secondary treatment could be thrown out, even though approved by the Secretary of Interior. Thus, the efforts to improve a meaningful water pollution control program would be set back for an indefinite period of time. We cannot afford this risk. We need a meaningful and a determined pro- gram that will secure for ourselves and future generations, a desirable quality of water. The guidelines issued by the Department of Interior have been considered by some as having the strength of law. But the federal Act did not require that conference conclusions and secondary treatment, as a minimum, be included in state standards. For the states to adopt standards solely to be in conformity with the guidelines is courting trouble. PAGENO="0155" 147 The alarm has already been sounded by Frank J. Barry, Solicitor of the Department of Interior, The Bureau of National Affairs reported in its Daily Report of July 28, 1967, the following: "The Water Quality Act of 1965 `is not a law at all,' in the judgment of Interior Department Solicitor, Frank J. Barry, but nierely a `methodology' for devel- oping water-pollution-control standards of doubtful enforceability. "Mr. Barry was one of four speakers here (San Francisco) at a water pollu- tion program sponsored by the Federal Bar Association's Real Estate Committee at the association's 1967 convention. "He recognized that the 1065 act will serve the purpose of focusing public attention on those industries and communities that are `the bad guys' of water pollution. In that sense, he viewed it is a small step in the right direction. "But a solution to the water pollution problem and preservation of our vital water resource, he went on, call for a major adjustment in our society. Unless the adjustment is made-and `there will be some bitter battles fought'-water pollution is one of the ways we can `burn up our civilization,' he declared." Dr. Mitchell Wendell, Legal Counsel to the Council of State Governments, and Secretary of this Association of State Industrial Water Pollution Control Ad- ministrators, has also raised the warning flag. At the Water Pollution Control Federation Meeting, earlier this year, Dr. Wendell questioned the enforceability of the FWPCA's requirements that state water quality standards demand sec- ondary treatment or its equivalent. Our federal and state government officials could well afford to take a new look at the present effort. Uniformity of effluent standards may readily be conceded as the approach which makes administration easier. But, is it best for the country? Is it worth the cost to the taxpayer and the consumer on whom the burden ultimately falls? In the long run, will it be a source of pride to the administrators of the program? The topic of the discussions today is tax incentive for industrial waste treat- ment facilities. The word "incentive" is actually a misnomer. The social respon- sibility of industry and the laws provide the incentives. What society, including the muncipalities and industries, should be looking for is the mechanism which would permit, at the lowest level possible, the fastest achievement of pollution control at the least cost to the general public. Because Congress determined as a matter of policy that pollution should be controlled and abated at a vastly accelerated rate and made the federal govern- ment a party to the action, it is reasonable to expect that the federal govern- ment would provide a portion of the funding required. Congress has already provided some financial assistance to municipalities. In addition, many mem- bers of Congress, both in the Senate and House, have introduced legislation to extend the policy of financial assistance to industry. These proposals would give industry additional tax credits ranging from 7% on up for investments made in waste treatment facilities. However, no formal Congressional Committee action has been given to these bills. The Senate Committee on Public Works, as Mr. Richard Royce, Chief Clerk, has indicated, believes Congress should give consideration to tax relief proposals for industrial pollution control activities. The Committee has properly based its reasoning on the fact that pollution control does n~t constitute a revenue-producing investment `to industry, but rather is an environmental improvement. The Committee report stated, "Installation of pollution control devices is costly and in many cases nonremunerative. The billion dollars of capital investment which will have to be made by the industrial sector for the benefit of the entire society will place a substantial burden on corporate resources and ultimately on the general public." Industry has supported the use of tax credits. In fact, industry has sought them to offset the high cost of constructing pollution control and abatement facilities. Furthermore, if the FWPCA requires the states to demand secondary treatment of all waste water discharges, industry will be required to ask Con- gress for substantial increases in the tax credits allowed for capital investments in waste treatment facilities, if it is to be able to have the financial capability for continuing productive capacity expansion. The Board of Directors of the National Chamber of Commerce has gone on record to say: "Present federal pollution control programs emphasize treatment methods and construction of facilities. This emphasis requires that industry make large capital investments and expensive attempts to improve performance of present govern- PAGENO="0156" 148 men-approved methods. Consequently, industry has sought tax credits and accelerated amortization provisions for anti-pollution devices. Additional tax credits and accelerated amortization will be needed if the present programs are continued. "Serious study needs to be given to incentives that would relate to performance in waste reduction rather than to the installation of particular treatment meth- ods. One weakness of the present programs is that they tend to encourage the use of established waste treatment methods to the possible exclusion of more efficient solutions such as process changes, or in the case of water, in-stream treatment. The present emphasis also encourages large investments in individual capital facilities which may soon face obsolescence should jointly owned or operated facilities or less capital-intensive methods prove to be more efficient." If the federal government is going to demand that the states require secondary treatment of all wastes, a good case can be made for a substantial increase in the tax credit allowed for investment in treatment facilities as being expenditures for some public benefit rather than as treatment required to prevent injury to another. However, it is also important to note that the mere authorization by Congress of a tax credit is of no value unless industry can take advantage of that tax credit. You will recall that for five months Congress suspended the 7% investment tax credit except for those expenditures which were made for pollution control and abatement facilities. For that period of time the Internal Revenue Service required that there be federal certification of those investments. Secretary `[Jdall proposed, in the Federal Register of February 1, 1967, a set of conditions that would have to be met for industry to take advantage of the 7% tax credit. That proposed rule has never been promulgated, but, if it had, or if a similar rule would be applied to additional tax credits made available by Congress, it would almost negate the incentive intended. Under these proposed rules, the Secretary would require double certification. That is, certification by state authorities and by the federal officials. Under these proposed rules to get the federal certification, conditions above and beyond the state requirements would have to be met. For industries seeking the tax credit, the net effect would have been the pre-emption of the state water quality stand- ards by a federal effuent standard. Thus, the intent of `the Water Quality Act of 1965 could have been substantially altered by the use of the proposed federal tax credit certification requirements. If Congress should allow industry a substantial tax credit for treatment facil- ities, the entire credit could be of little or no value to industry by reason of the Secretary's cerUfication requirements. Congress should set forth the specific qualifications, or provide that state certification will be sufficient to qualify for the federal tax credit. Tax assistance to encourage water pollution abatement has been recognized as in the public interest by a number of states. However, the tax credit appli- cation can be a problem when it is difficult to show what part of the capital investment in a new plant has actually gone into pollution control and abatement facilities. This points up the advisability of defining in any legislation what the rules should be for certification. States have had to devise such rules for appli- cation of their credits. Granting the states the responsibility of certification for federal tax credit allowances would be a practical approach that would eliminate dunlication of effort and expense. Let me summarize my comments on tax credits by saying that if the present FWPCA program continues to demand that states arbitrarily insist upon sec- ondary treatment of all effluent, industry is unquestionably going to need sub- stantial tax credits to finance the costly and unprofitable treatment facilities. Another "incentive" that might be made available to industry would be an allowance for the accelerated amortization of their waste treatment facilities. The business community would favor the quick write-off of their capital costs in a one-to-three year period. This would he most helpful when coupled with tax credits. The Senate Public Works Committee suggested that Congress should also give consideration to a federal loan program designed to assist industry with the costs of pollution control. The Committee suggested that a Rural Electrification- type program might be helpful. This REA program, as you know. was designed as a social program to enhance the welfare of our rural citizens. The Committee states that, "The control of pollution is even a more important welfare require- mont of our urban population." PAGENO="0157" 149 It may be advisable for the government to provide such a loan program, par- ticularly, for some of the smaller or marginal plants that do not have the captial available for financing the costly waste treatment facilities. Such a program could be beneficial, but it does not provide a significant contribution to the costs of pollution control and abatement facilities. Rather, there would be the addi- tional cost of the administration of the program. One meritorious possibility for giving aid to industrial plants for pollution control and abatement would be for the federal government to make block grants to the states for that specific purpose. The states could then administer a pro- gram which would allow for grants or loans to those plants which need the funds to meet the state requirements. This would permit the local authorities to provide the assistance where it is most urgently needed to improve water quality In discussing programs that the federal government might inaugurate to assist in our continuing efforts to control and abate pollution, I feel compelled to com- ment upon the suggestion made by some that an effluent fee program be estab- lished. Conceptually, the effluent fee program would require industrial plants and municipalities to pay for the wastes discharged into streams and rivers. This pos- sibility was given serious attention by a Study Committee made up of officials from the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Interior, Commerce, HEW, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisors. In August, 1960, this committee reported, based upon the information it had at that time, "that effluent fees provide an effective and highly efficient incentive for water pollution con- trol. The Committee, therefore, recommends their use in addition to the enforce- ment provisions enacted in the Water Quality Act of 1965." The information and data presently being gathered by a similar committee within the government, has overwhelmingly shown such a program would be unworkable. Under present circumstances, the business community would also have to oppose any such program. The knowledge now available indicates how important pollution control policies are to the nation, not only for the sake of water quality, but because of the financial costs to the country. Estimates of the costs of treatment, i.e., amorti- zation of the capital investment and operation and maintenance costs, indicate that capital costs are about one-fourth to one~third the total costs. In other words, the operation costs will be about twice the construction costs. It must be re- membered that operating costs are a tax deductible item. Thus, if increased treatment is required, it reduces future taxable income. If the increased treat- ment provides no realizable benefit in the stream, the public receives no benefit and the governments, state and federal, lose revenues. Dr. Henry C. Bramer, an industrial economist, formerly of Mellon Institute, who is well qualified in the field of pollution control mechanics, a*s wells as economics, recently reported to the American Institute of Chemical Engineers how financially important water pollution control decisions are to the American taxpayer. First, he reported that, on `the average, operating costs to treat each thousand gallons of industrial process water would amount to: 10 cents for primary treatment, 20 cents for secondary treatment, 40 cents for tertiary treatment. In other words, each decision to require the next higher degree of treatment doubles the operating cost. For American industry, which utilizes 3,700 billion gallons of water a year for processing purposes, the operating costs would be: $370,000,000 for primary treatment, $740,000,000 for secondary treatment, $1,480,000,000 for tertiary treatment. Secondary treatment thus adds $370 million per year to the cost of treating industrial water. Unless it is justifiable, it would be a poor allocation of re- sources. What it adds as a cost to municipalities I do not know. But, Dr. Bramer offers an even more ominous warning when he cautions that the cost of process water treatment is smaller than the cost of lowering the tem- perature of "cooling water" used by industry to meet an arbitrary effluent stand- ard, such as 90° F. For American industry, the operating and amortization cost to provide cool- ing facilities will be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Dr. Bramer. Secondary treatment of process water plus the cooling of "cooling water" thus means an annual cost of $1.8 billion. PAGENO="0158" 150 If requirements for secondary treatment are limited to those areas where it is justified, the final cost will be somewhere between the ~370 and the ~1,800 million a year. The next few months are crucial for the development of our water pollution control programs. The public needs to know the costs of pollution control and the benefits to be gained, so that our policy makers can make the right decisions in directing the use of the limited resources of our municipalities and industries and thus, the people. This is a responsibility of the technical leaders. In summary, let me say again that the best incentive that could be made avail- able to the industrial community, and I am sure to the municipalities, would be the establishment of reasonable standards, coupled with a realistic timetable, that would protect the water quality in our rivers, streams, and lakes. If we are concerned with the quality of water as differentiated from the quality of the effluents, the question of reasonableness-reasonable standards and reasonable time periods-can be easily determined by you, the administrators of the state programs, the federal officials, and representatives of the business-industrial community. I appreciate the opportunity of discussing these problems with you. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., Marclt 4, 1968. lion. JAMES A. RHODES, Governor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio. DEAR GOVERNOR RHODES: I am pleased to inform you that, except as noted below, I have approved the water quality standards of the State of Ohio, based upon my determination that they are consistent with the protection of the public health and welfare, the enhancement of the quality of the water, and the pur- poses of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as provided by Section 10 (c) (3) of that Act. Accordingly, the standards as approved are those applicable under the Act to the interstate waters of Ohio. A basic policy of the Act is to protect and enhance the quality and productivity of the Nation's waters. Our review and Study of the standards to date has rein- forced our conclusion that implementation of this policy requires a standard sub- stantially in accordance with the following: Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of your State will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source of pollu- tion or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology and, since these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively. The standards submitted by your State did not include a comparable pro- vision, and, since it is our mutual desire to carry out the purposes and intent of the Act, I would appreciate your early concurrence with regard to incorpo- rating such a comparable provision as a part of the enforceable standards of your State. Please advise, in addition, the time when the procedure for this purpose can be initiated and completed. You will recall that my letters of July 18 and August 7, 1967, indicated that the water quality criteria and plans of implementation submitted by Ohio for its interstate waters had been reviewed. In each letter, I noted some of the sig- nificant issues which had to be resolved between our water pollution control agencies before these criteria and plans could be approved as Federal standards under the Act. Our water pollution control agencies have met and have reached agreement on a number of revisions. I wish to commend your water pollution control officials for their cooperation, and I am gratified by the high water PAGENO="0159" 151 quality goals Ohio has set and the ambitious program the standards provide for protecting and enhancing interstate waters to make beneficial water uses, such as recreation and fishing, broadly available. The program which Ohio proposes for upgrading the quality and uses of the Great Miami River is admirable. One component of this agreement which I consider particularly significant to our future programs is that Ohio indicates its acceptance of the recommendations of the Lake Erie Federal Enforcement Conference and Technical Committee report for upgrading the quality of the Lake. This will require vigorous and early implementation of treatment requirements and programs for nutrient control, especially in the Toledo and Cleveland harbor areas. We anticipate that implementation of treatment measures will provide significant enhance- ment of presently polluted areas. In particular, I hope that accomplishment of treatment will raise the quality in Toledo Harbor to such an extent that the existing "Aquatic Life B" criteria and classification can be raised. It will be desirable to monitor water quality continuously so that improvements are readily discerned and any appropriate upgrading of criteria, use designations or treatment requirements can be made as soon as possible. I am excepting standards for the Mahoning River from my approval until the State has adopted standards for the River above Newton Falls and satisfactory compliance with the actions of the Federal Enforcement Conference held on the Mahoning River is obtained. I am also expecting from my approval the odor criterion for Little Ronver, Yankee and Pymatuning Creeks pending completion of current studies on this problem. Further, I am excepting from approval the temperature and dis- solved oxygen criteria for waters classified as "Aquatic Life A." These criteria, particularly in the case of high quality waters, should reflect natural conditions more closely and thereby more adequately protect the indigenous aquatic life. This will, in our opinion, necessitate lowering the maximum temperature limits in many cases. As for the dissolved oxygen criteria, it appears that establish- ment of higher limits is possible and warranted in many parts of the State. In particular regard to the cold w~ter streams, Turkey and Conneaut Creeks, w-e believe a very stringent temperature limit should be set, preferably allowing no change over normal, to fully protect the scarce cold water fisheries. I have asked the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to contact your water pollution control officials for the purpose of conducting a cooperative study of available data which will enable establishment of more adequate and tailored criteria. In view of the special needs and conditions of Lake Erie and the necessity of establishing a lake-wide program, I believe that compatibility of Lake Erie's temperature criteria among the Lake States is very important. I am requesting the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to contact the water pollution control officials in each of these States so that consistent temperature limits can be developed. In addition, it appears that clarification is required of the areas in the Ohio River where (primary contact) recreational use is protected. We believe that a substantial part of the Ohio River should be protected by bacteriological standards so that recreational use is possible. I would appreciate receiving within six months supplemental information from Ohio showing the areas on the Ohio River where recreation is designated as a use, along with appropriate bacteriological criteria. In addition to the items which I am excepting from my approval and the neces- sary clarification discussed above, I would like to call your attention to an area in which I believe an addition to the standards would be desirable. This is pro- tecting, by means of appropriate bacteriological criteria, secondary contact rec- reation associated with fishing in waters classified for protection of aquatic life. Ohio's standards do not presently include bacteriological limits in the aquatic life criteria, and I recommend that Ohio adopt such limits to protect secondary contact recreation in waters classified for aquatic life which are not classified for other uses (e.g., public water supply or primary contact recreation) which provide bacteriological criteria that are comparable or more stringent. Successful implementation of the standards is the key to accomplishing our mutual goals of enhancing the quality and productivity of our waters. Adherence to the high degree of treatment specified and the time schedule proposed in the implementation plan is thus very important. The annual State program plan, which your State water pollution control agency prepares and submits to the PAGENO="0160" 152 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in connection with our grant program can provide a basis for updating information on the status of implement- ing the standards. Lastly, it is evident that our waste treatment and water pollution control technology will advance and knowledge of water quality requirements for water uses will improve, and the collection of water quality data will make more infor- mation available to assure more accurate assignment of water quality criteria. As this new knowledge becomes available, we will further expect to cooperate with the State of Ohio in making necessary amendments to the standards that have been theretofore approved. It will be our pleasure to continue to work to- gether to protect, upgrade and enhance the quality of the waters of your State. Sincerely yours, STEWART L. UDALL, secretary of the Interior. MARCH 22, 1968. HON. STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary ot the Interior, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This is to acknowledge your letter of March 4, 1968, approving, with certain exceptions, the water quality standards for Ohio's inter- state waters adopted by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board and submitted to you as required by Section 10(c) (3) of Federal Public Law 660. Regarding the exceptions, for many years it has been the policy in Ohio to Protect waters of high quality by requiring the installation of facilities to provide the most effective waste treatment available under existing technology. I am confident there would be no hesistancy on the part of the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board and there would be no conflict with actions already taken by this Board by adopting a clarification of the standard proposed by you, as follows: "Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality so as not to interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible, in such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source of pollution or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the most effective waste treatment available under existing technology." Your suggested inclusion of the Department of the Interior as an agency for the enforcement of Ohio water quality standards appears to call for a legally impossible delegation of authority by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board. The formal adoption of a clarified standard by the Ohio Water Pollution Con- trol Board, as proposed above, should satisfy the other requirements set forth in your letter except those for the Mahoning River, and Little Beaver, Yankee and Pymatuning Creeks. I recognize that further studies and conferences are needed to consider your conditions for approval of the water quality standards for these streams. Your suggested changes in the temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria would very likely require additional public hearings and justi- fications by your staff that such changes are necessary for adequate protection of the waters under consideration. I would appreciate receiving your comments with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, JAMES A. RHODES, Governor. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Denver, Cob., February 23, 1968. Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C. DEAR SECRETARY UDALL: since the passage of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, Colorado has made every effort to comply with this federal legislation. However, due to the constantly vacillating requirements and opinions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the Department of the Interior, cooperation between Colorado and the federal establishment has become PAGENO="0161" 153 exceedingly difficult. On at least three occasions, members of our State Water Pollution Control Commission and staff members of our Water Pollution Control Division have met with representatives of the Federal Water Pollution Control administration to resolve differences regarding our Colorado Water Quality Standards. At the conclusion of each of these meetings, it was felt by both State and Federal representatives that an agreement had been reached and this agree- ment was conveyed in letter form to your office. The last such meeting between our Commission and staff and representatives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was held in Denver on November 14, 1967. The understanding between the State of Colorado and your representatives was conveyed to you in a letter dated December 11, 1967. A reply to this letter was received on February 7, 1968. In this reply, it was stated, in essence, that your department could agree, with one exception, to the changes proposed to our water quality standards once they had been formally adopted after the due process of public hearings. The one exception was with regard to temperature criteria for cold water and warm water fishing areas. Specifically, the question arises as to whether we should set definite numerical limits for temperature changes allowed in warm and cold water fisheries. A member of our Water Pollution Control Commission, who is also a staff member of our Game, Fish and Parks Department, points out that in Colorado the fish are often dropped into lakes and streams with as much as a 100 temperature differential. In many of our streams the difference between day and night temperatures in the stream have often exceeded the temperature changes recommended by your department. We have not found that this temperature change has affected the fish in any way. Furthermore, due to the scarcity of water in Colorado, cooling towers are normal at most plants and consequently, very little warm water is discharged into the waters of the state. We feel that we are adequately protecting both the cold and warm water fish in our state by the following statement: "No temperature rise will be permitted which will interfere with spawning or other aspects of fish life." On February 14, 1968, we received your news release dated February 8. 1968, entitled: "Water Quality Degradation issue Resolved." We are particularly disturbed with some of the statements made in this release. In Colorado we have many streams whose existing water quality is better than the established standard for that stream and we intend to maintain this high quality as long as is humanly possible. By requiring secondary treatment of municipal wastes and the equivalent for industrial wastes for all waters of our state, we feel that we have shown that we intend to preserve the quality of our State's waters. However, we also realize that as our state grows and as more industry and people move into our state, limited degradation will occur. We feel that even with this limited degradation we will be able to maintain the high quality of our waters. The one statement in your release that especially disturbs us is as follows: "These and other waters of a state will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the state water pollution control agency and the Department of Interior that such changes are justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of or presently possible in such waters." Colorado does not feel that any state should be asked to give to a federal agency or department the authority to control the economic growth and develop- ment of that state. As we interpret this statement, this is exacly what we feel you are asking us to do. We strongly feel that the economic growth and develop- ment of any state should be within the prerogatives of that state and that state alone. We feel that to carry out such a policy is in direct opposition to Section 1(c) of the Federal Water Quality Act which states: `Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing nor in any manner affect- ing any right or jurisdiction of the states in respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such states." Therefore, the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission requests that the vacillation back and forth with regard to our water quality standards be resolved by your office. The Commission has stated in all of their correspondence, meetings with representatives of your office, as well as in our Plan of Implementation and State Plan, that our state intends to meet the spirit of both the Federal and State Law. We, therefore, request immediate approval of our standards so that we can get on with the job of abatement and control. Sincerely, JoHN A. Lovx. 94_376-68-1l PAGENO="0162" 154 U~S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 15, 1968. HON. LURLEEN WALLACE, Governor of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala. DEAR GOVERNOR WALLACE: A review of the situation with regard to the Ala- bama water quality standards has convinced me it is possible to approve your standards with certain exceptions that were noted in my previous letter to you. I believe that such an action will allow translation into Federal Standards of the bulk of the fine Alabama Standards and narrow down the remaining items yet to be resOlved to the dissolved oxygen and temperature criteria for Fish and Aquatic Life as well as the requirement for a statement on the degradation of waters of existing high quality. In the course of approving the various standards submitted by the States, it has become obvious to me that some of those approved last summer were not of the same quality which we are now requiring. Accordingly, we have embarked on a program to review those earlier approvals and to require upgrading of such parameters as temperature and dissolved oxygen to make them consistent with those we are now requiring for other States. I point this out to you, particularly since this is the case with one of your neighboring States, and I want to assure you that we will ask for adoption of temperature and dissolved oxygen param- eters as well as a water quality degradation statement similar to those requested of Alabama. For these reasons, I am pleased to inform you that, except as noted below, I have approved the water quality standards of the State of Alabama based upon my determination that they are consistent with protection of public health and welfare, enhancement of water quality, and the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as provided by Section 10(c) (3) of that Act. Accordingly, the standards as approved are those applicable under the Act to the interstate waters of Alabama. A basic policy of the Act is to protect and enhance the quality and produc- tivity of the Nation's waters. Our review and study of standards to date has re- inforced our conclusion that implementation of this policy requires a standard substantially in accordance with the following: Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of your State will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or pres- ently possible, in such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a ilew source of pollu- tion or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required. as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology, and, since these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively. The standards submitted by your State did not include a comparable provision, and, since it is our mutual desire to carry out the purposes and intent of this Act, I would appreciate your early concurrence with regard to incorporating such a comparable provision as a part of the enforceable standards of your State. Please advise, in addition, the time when the procedure for this purpose can be initiated and completed. I am excepting from my approval the temperature and dissolved oxygen pa- rameters as set forth in the State's submissions of specific water quality criteria for shellfish harvesting and for fish and wildlife for all interstate waters speci- fying these uses. I believe these criteria can be upgraded so that they protect existing high quality and reflect improved conditions in presently polluted waters as these are expected to result from implementation of treatment requirements. The numerical changes required to accomplish this are relatively small and I hope you will agree to have your staff work with mine to resolve the problem rapidly. In the course of earlier discussions between our respective staffs a number of agreements were reached which led to revisions in the standards I am now ap- proving. One component of these agreements which I consider particularly sig- PAGENO="0163" 155 nificant to our future programs is that the Alabama Water Improvement Com- mission has upgraded its policy for minimum treatment of industrial wastes to a requirement for 75 percent BOD removal. It is my understanding that this is the minimum value which applies to any type of biodegradable industrial waste~ However, where wastes are amenable to higher levels of treatment, we under- stand that substantially greater treatment will be attained in order to maximize water quality enhancement. I would expect to follow the success of this policy with interest, and stand ready to cooperate with you wherever necessary to achieve this mutual goal. The Commission also agreed to a joint review with the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration to determine adequate bacteriological criteria for protection of public water supply and recreational uses of water, and to modify the standards as necessary. Furthermore, the Commission has agreed to a high degree of treatment of wastes in the Mobile Bay area and to review the water quality of the area as treatment requirements are implemented so that any ap- propriate revisions in the criteria and use classifications can be made. It will be necessary to monitor water quality continuously so that improvements are readily discerned and criteria and use changes made as soon as possible. Here, too, my Department stands ready to assist you in any way possible or necessary.. Successful implementation of the standards is, of course, the key to accom- plishing our mutual goals of protecting and enhancing the quality and produc- tivity of Alabama's interstate waters. Alabama is to be commended for its policy of requiring a minimum of secondary treatment for all waste discharges. Adher- ence to the degree of treatment specified and the time schedule proposed in the implementation plan is very important if the objectives of the water quality standards program are to be met. The annual State program plan, which your State water pollution control agency prepares and submits to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in connection with our grant program, can provide a basis for updating information on the status of implementing the standards. Lastly, it is evident that our waste treatment and water pollution control technology will advance and knowledge of water quality requirements for water uses will improve, and the collection of water quality data will make more infor- mation available to assure more accurate assignment of water quality criteria. As this new knowledge becomes available, we will further expect to cooperate with the State of Alabama in making necessary amendments to the standards that have been theretofore approved. It will be our pleasure to continue to work together to protect, upgrade and enhance the quality of the water of your fine State. Sincerely yours, STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior~ WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMIssIoN, STATE OFFICE BUILDING, Montgomery, Ala., February 27, 1968. Hon. LIsTER HILL, Senator, State of Alabama, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: The Alabama Water Improvement Commission sincerely regrets the necessity for again bringing to your attention the matter of Federal approval of water quality standards adopted by the Commission for interstate waters of our State. As matters stand, we need your advice and counsel in re- solving the apparent impasse which has developed between the Department of the Interior and the State with respect to dissolved oxygen and temperature' criteria for waters supporting fish and aquatic life and, more particularly, the water quality degradation statement the Secretary of the Interior, Honorable Stewart L. Udall, in his latest communication with Governor Wallace, has re- quested as a part of our water quality standards. I know that you have been concerned over the status of Alabama's water qual- ity standards and have a real interest in this matter of paramount importance to our State. I assume you are aware of the Secretary's letter to Governor Wallace dated February 15, 1968 and referred to above, in which the Secretary expresses approval of Alabama's standards, with exceptions. The exceptions taken by the PAGENO="0164" 156 Secretary are dissolved oxygen and temperature parameters contained in the State's water quality criteria for shellfish harvesting and fish and wildlife for all interstate waters specifying these uses. With minor exceptions, Alabama's stand- ards specify the use of all interstate and coastal waters for fish and wildlife and, in many instances, for swimming and public water supply. The only exceptions are Hog Bayou, Three Mile Creek and the lower three miles of Chickasaw Creek in Mobile County which are classified for navigation and the lower eight miles of Mobile River which section is classified for agricultural and industrial water sup- ply. In view of this, standards for the vast majority of Alabama's interstate and coastal waters are yet to receive the unqualified approval of the Secretary. It is interesting to note that the classifications and criteria for the above cited excep- tions were approved by the Secretary in his letter of February 15th to Governor Wallace. I should point out that the Secretary's objections to Alabama's dissolved oxygen and temperature criteria for fish and wildlife remain unchanged from those expressed in his letter of January 19, 1968 to Governor Wallace although the Governor, for reasons stated in her letter to the Secretary, dated February 5, 1968, requested approval of Alabama's standards as submitted. Reproductions of the Secretary's letters of January 19th and Fcbruary 15th and the Governor's ~Eetter of February 5th are attached. As it now stands, the Secretary continues to object to Alabama's dissolved oxy- gen and temperature criteria for fish and wildlife and asserts that he will require those states whose standards have been approved with criteria similar to Ala- bama's to revise their criteria to make them consistent with his present require- ments. Furthermore, the Secretary's letter of February 15th imposes a new re- quirement, incorporation of a water quality degradation statement in Alabama's standards, which he had stated in a news release, dated February 8, 1968, will be applied to all states, including those with approved standards. I will comment on this water quality degradation statement, which has far-reaching implications and should be of grave concern to all states, later in this letter. Perhaps a resumé of the record will give you an understanding of the dilemma we seem to be facing. As you know, Alabama, along with all other states, agreed to establish water quality standards for interstate waters as provided by the Water Quality Act of 1965. After holding fourteen public hearings during Novem- ber-December, 1966 and January, 1967, the Commission adopted standards not only for interstate waters but also intrastate waters in all river basins containing interstate waters. These standards and a plan of implementation were submitted to the Secretary on June 26, 1967. It is significant that neither the Department of the Interior nor its administrative agency for water pollution, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, issued statements or information regarding dissolved oxygen and temperature criteria for fish and wildlife prior to or during the Commission's public hearings on water quality standards. At least one repre- sentative of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration attended each of the Commission's hearings. The only comments by a representative of the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Administration were made verbally in April, 1967 when a member of the Commission's staff was told that the Washington Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration had reviewed Alabama's dissolved oxygen criteria but had made no comments. The Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration representative also told our staff member that the maximum temperature of 950 F., originally proposed by the Commission, was felt to be too high. The maximum temperature was lowered to 930 F. in the stand- ards adopted by the Commission. On July 18, 1967, Secretary TlJdall advised Governor Wallace that his Depart- ment's review of Alabama's water quality criteria and implementation plan had been completed and that these documents reflected an impressive effort. The Secretary further stated that the criteria and plan "set forth a realistic nnd workable program for protecting and enhancing the quality and productivity of Alabama's interstate waters in accordance with the intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended" but that a few issues must be resolved before he could approve Alabama's standards. The issues listed by the Secretary as requiring resolution were: 1. The degree of treatment for industrial waste. 2. Quality requirements for the navigation use classification. 3. Quality requirements for the Mobile River. 4. Bacteriological criteria for recreational and public water supply. ~. Exemption of cooling water discharges from temperature criteria. PAGENO="0165" 157 It is most interesting, in view of present circumstances, that dissolved oxygen and temperature criteria for fish and wildlife were not listed by the Secretary, in his letter of July 18, 1967, as issues which must be resolved. We were later advised that listing of cooling water discharges was an oversight since these discharges were specifically covered in the standards originally submitted by Alabama. Discussions of the issues raised by the Secretary in his letter of July 18, 1967, copy attached, were initiated immediately by the Commission's staff and repre- sentatives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. These dis- cussions led to mutual agreements which were formally adopted by the Com- mission on August 24, 1967 and forwarded to the Atlanta Regional Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on August 30, 1967 in accordance with the Secretary's instructions. This submittal, reproduction attached, was not acknowledged by either the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's regional office or the office of the Secretary. After two months without word on the status of our standards, and in view of scheduled hearings on water quality standards for intrastate waters of the Cahaba River and Warrior River Basins, I wired the Secretary on October 30, 1967 requesting advice as to his decision. A copy of this telegram, reproduction attached, was sent to you, and we sincerely appreciate your action on our behalf. We received no more than an acknowledgement of our telegram until the Secretary's letter to Governor Wallace dated January 19, 1968. Finally, on February 15, 19~8, the Secretary expressed acceptance of the agreements adopted by the Commission and submitted on August 30, 1967. I am convinced that water quality criteria adopted by Alabama for fish and wildlife and shellfish harvesting waters are realistic and, within limits of present knowledge, represent the most practical and reasonable approach to protection and utilization of the water resources of Alabama in the best interest of the public. The consistency of our criteria with those of states adjoining Alabama, or within the same geographical region, as well as with the criteria of several of the states, some removed from our geographical region including New York and South Dakota, whose standards have been approved by the Secretary support this contention. For your information, I am attaching list- ings of dissolved oxygen and temperature criteria compiled from standards adopted by states within our region and from states' standards approved by the Secretary. Information on states' standards approved by the Secretary was furnished by the Atlanta Regional Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on January 30, 1968. The standard on degradation of waters of existing high quality which the Secretary is now requiring deserves, and should be given, most serious considera- tion. This standard, or statement as it is sometimes referred to, reads as follows: "Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of your State will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible, in such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source of pollu- tioa or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology, and, since these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed coop- eratively." There is a degree of ambiguity in this statement as the first sentence ex- pressly states that waters of existing high quality will not be lowered in quality and the remainder of the statement sets forth how the quality of these waters caii be lowered. Nevertheless, I know of no one who would disagree with the philosophy of preserving high quality waters to the maximum extent possible but not to the exclusion of developments necessary and essential to our economic and social welfare which can be permitted without endangering existing uses of these waters. In effect, the Commission is applying such a policy through its requirements of high degrees of treatment for industrial and municipal wastes and is required by Alabama law to recognize, "The existing water conditions of PAGENO="0166" 158 the state and the right of municipalities, industries and individuals to the rea- *sonable use of such wasters so as to promote the continued growth and develop- iiient of the state, in industry, agriculture, health, recreation and conservation of natural resources . . ." (Act No. 574, Acts of Alabama, 1965). The disturbing feature of the statement requested by the Secretary is that its adoption would subjugate the state water pollution control agency to the De- partment of the Interior and confer to that Department the right to decide what is desirable or necessary for economic or social development of the state. In this sense, the statement is not a degradation policy but is a conferment of au- thority. In essence the state water pollution control agency would become noth- ing more than a "middle-man" or clearing-house between the Federal Govern- ment, represented by the Department of the Interior, and the industry, munici- pality or private individual whose project constitutes a new or increased source of pollution. Not only would the Department of the Interior decide who could discharge wastes and where the discharge could be made but would also have the final word regarding treatment requirements. The wording of the statement leaves no doubt but that its provisions would apply to all interstate waters, not just those of existing high quality. I should remind you that the definition of interstate waters as applied by the Department of Interior is that a stream only needs to cross the boundary between two states to become an interstate waterway over its entire length. As examples, the Coosa, Tallapoosa and Tom- bigbee Rivers are interstate waterways of Alabama because of their origins in adjoining states although neither of these streams flow from Alabama into an adjoining state. There are several smaller streams in Alabama which also fall in this category and the Alabama River is considered to be an interstate water- way because it is formed by the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, which are inter- rtate waterways by the above definition. If our interpretations of the powers the Secretary's statement would vest in the Department of the Interior strike you as those of an alarmist, I suggest you ask yourself, or more importantly inquire of the Secretary, if the Department of the Interior intends to: (1) require notification of all proposed developments likely to constitute new or increased sources of pollution of interstate waters; (2) require the submission of proposals to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration; (3) unilaterally decide as to the adequacy of proposed treat- ment methods; (4) deny the proposed development in the event the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is not satisfied with the proposal; and, (5) reserve the right to decide what is necessary for the economic and social development of an area within a state. Finally, the intent of Congress as expressed in Subsection (b) of Section 1, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is "to recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the states in preventing and controlling water pollution . . ." We conscientiously question the compatahility of the Secretary of the Interior's approach with the intent of Congress. We further question the right of the Secretary to withhold approval of water quality standards from a state which does not include his water quality degradation statement as a part of its ~tandards. We regret burdening you with our problems but, under the circumstances, apparently have no alternative but to seek your advice and counsel. Your very truly, IRA L. MYERs, M.D., Chairman, Water Improvem ent Corn mission. C0vINGT0N & BTJRLING. Washington, D.C., April 4, 1968. Mr. JAMES G. WATT, Secretary, Natural Resources Coinniittee. Chamber of Commerce of the Unite~l States of America, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mu. WATT: You have requested our opinion whether the Secretary of Interior is authorized to determine that State water quality standards are not consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on the ground that they fail to include (1) an effluent standard relating to the quality of matter permitted to be discharged into interstate waters. or (2) a uniform standard of "nondegradation" as published by the Secretary. In our view the answer to both parts of this question is No. The Secretary has no authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by PAGENO="0167" 159 the Water Quality Act of 1905, to insist that a State include in its water quality standards applicable to interstate waters either an effluent standard-such as an absolute requirement of secondary treatment or its equivalent-or a require- ment that waters whose existing quality is better than the estabilshed standards will be maintained at their existing high quality. The express policy of Congress in enacting and amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary re- sponsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollu- tion," and under the Act it is the initial right and responsibility of each State to adopt, after public hearings, water quality standards applicable to interstate waters within or on its borders. If the Secretary of the Interior determines that a State has adopted water quality criteria and an enforcement plan that are consistent with the Act, such State criteria and plan thereafter become the water quality standards applicable to the interstate waters within the State. If the Secretary were to disapprove a State's water quality standards for their failure to include either an effluent standard or a nondegradation requirement, and then to promulgate standards applicable to the interstate waters of that State which included these requirements, the State would be entitled to a public hearing before an independent Hearing Board. In our view the Hearing Board would be obliged, as a matter of law, to recommend the elimination of these requirements from the standards promulgated by the Secretary, and the Sec- retary would be obliged to promulgate revised standards of water quality in accordance with the Hearing Board's recommendation. This letter sets forth in summary form the basis for these conclusions, which are further elaborated with citation to the legislative history and other relevant authorities, in the accompanying memorandum. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS MUST RELATE TO THE QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING STREAM Both the language and the legislative history of the 1965 amendments to the Act makes it clear that Congress intended that water quality standards prescribe the quality of the waters into which effluent is discharged, rather than the quality of the effluent itself, and that such standards must relate to the use and value of the receiving body of water. Section 10(c) (1) provides for the adoption of "water quality criteria appli- cable to interstate waters or portions thereof within such state"-clearly a refer- ence to the quality of the receiving waters. Water quality standards must meet the requirements of section 10(c) (3), which provides that in establishing such standards States, the Secretary, and Hearing Boards must take into considera- tion the use and value of interstate waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial and other legitimate uses. This emphasis on the use and value of the receiving waters is fundamental to Congress' insistence upon local standards that relate directly to the quality of these waters. The sole means for Federal enforcement of water quality standards is set forth in section 10(e) (5), which provides that the "discharge of matter into such inter- state waters or portions thereof, whieh~ reduces the quality of such waters below the water quality standards established under this subsection . . . is subject to abatement (Emphasis added.) No violation occurs until it can be shown that the quality of the stream has been reduced below the level prescribed in the standard for that stream. The fact that the Water Quality Act requires that water quality standards apply to the stream rather than to the effluent is the result of the deliberate de- cision by Congress to reject the approach taken in the initial Administration pro- posal. which would have authorized both stream standards and controls reading directly on the effluent. On the basis of testimony at the first bearings on the bill, the Senate Committee removed the provision for effluent standards, and it never reappeared through enactment. Thus, both the statutory language reading explicitly in, terms of stream stand- ards, and the Congressional refusal to provide for effluent controls, make it clear that the Secretary of the Interior has no authority to insist on the inclusion of an effluent criteria in State water quality standards as a necessary condition for their approval under the Act. More particularly, the insistence by the Secre- tary that States include within their water quality criteria a uniform require- ment of secondary treatment or its equivalent, without regard to whether such treatment is necessary to achieve compliance with the applicable stream stand- ards, is beyond the Secretary's statutory authority. PAGENO="0168" 160 In many instances municipalities and companies may have to install secondary treatment or its equivalent if they are to prevent the discharge of matter which reduces the quality of interstate streams below the applicable water quality standards. Failure to install secondary treatment in those instances would re- sult in a violation of both Federal and State law. But an across-the-board requirement of secondary treatment or its equivalent without regard tO the water quality standards applicable to the interstate waters in question is contrary to the Congressional intent and the statutory language. If, after the adoption of water quality standards based on particular uses and values of an interstate stream, a municipality or a company finds that it need not install secondary treatment in order to prevent the discharge of matter that would reduce the quality of the stream below such standards, then there is no basis for requiring such treatment or for taking Federal enforcement action for failure to install it. THE LACK OF A STATUTORY BASIS FOR A NONDEGRADATION STANDARD A somewhat different question is raised by the attempt of the Secretary to insist that every State water quality standard include a provision to require that waters whose existing quality is better than established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. The Secretary has stated that the lowering of the quality of such waters would be permitted only upon a determination by the State water pollution control agency and the Department of Interior that such change is jus- tifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not in- terfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently pos- sible in, such waters. Any new or increased source of pollution to high quality waters would be required to provide "the highest and best degree of waste treat- ment available under existing technology." Such a "nondegradation" standard cannot be justified under the provisions of the Act. First, in adopting water quality standards, State authorities must consider, on the evidence presented at public hearings, whether the quality of a particular stream should be improved in order to permit uses not now possible, whether the standards should reflect the existing level of water quality because it satisfactorily accounts for desired uses and values of the stream, or whether standards should be Set at levels below the existing quality level in order to ac- commodate uses and values of importance to the citizens of the State and con- sistent with purposes of the Act. A nondegradation standard would in effect over- ride any stream standard in this last category, for it would purport to require a water quality level above that specified in the standard. There is no basis in the Act for the Secretary summarily to disregard the decision of the State authori- ties, and to impose a general requirement unrelated to the hearing evidence. State standards must of course meet the general requirements of section 10(c) (3) "to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of w-ater and serve the purposes of this Act." Presumably the nondegradation standard is thought to be justified as a means to "enhance the quality of water," but such a narrow reading of this one provision ignores the statutory purpose "to enhance the quality and value of our water resources," and in effect nullifies the require- ment that the Secretary and the State take into consideration the "use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational pur- poses, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses." If the hearing record establishes that maximum value and use of a stream can be achieved by water quality standards somewhat below existing levels, then the Secretary cannot arbitrarily refuse to give effect to such standards. A second difficulty with a general nondegradation standard is that it purports to impose an unenforceable requirement. A Federal action for failure to observe water quality standards can be maintained only upon a showing that discharged matter reduced the quality of the receiving stream below the standards adopted for that stream. No action would lie under the Act for the discharge of matter that merely reduced the stream quality below earlier quality levels, if the stream continued to meet the requirements of the standards themselves. A third objection to the Secretary's nondegradation standard is that it seeks to displace the initial responsibility of the State to etablish water quality standards and to prevent and control water pollution. Under the nondegradation standard, permission to lower the quality of "high quality" waters would be granted only upon a showing of justification made to the State and the Secretary. But the Act carefully prescribes the roll of the Secretary in the establishment and enforce- nment of water quality standards, limiting his authority to the approval of State standards, the promulgation of standards if State standards are not consistent PAGENO="0169" 161 with the Act, and the initiation of court enforcement proceedings. He has no statutory authority to require prior Federal approval of discharges into a stream or of treatment facilities. Finally, the requirement that new or increased pollution of "high quality waters" can be permitted only if the installation will have the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology is an attempt to write effluent standards into the Act, and to impose a degree of treatment that is inconsistent with the enforcement tests of "practicability" and "physical and economic feasibility." A treatment method that is technically available may well be impracticable and totally unfeasible economically. Under any circumstances, a violation of the Act must be predicated on discharge that reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the stream standard, and not on failure to install any particular type or degree of treatment facility. For these reasons, we conclude that the Secretary has no authority to require that States adopt either effluent or nondegradation standards as a condition of receiving approval of water quality standards under the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act. S,Tery truly yours, * COVINGTON & BURLING By EDWARD DuNKELBERGER. [Prepared by Ed Dunkelberger of the Covington & Burling Law Firm as a backup to their April 4 letter to the Chamber of Commerce of the United `States] APRIL 4, 1968. MEMORANDUM RE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT INTRODUCTION This memorandum focuses upon the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to require a State to include specific provisions in its water quality standards as a condition of his approval of those standards under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965. This and related questions are considered in the light of the legislative history of the 1965 amendments and other relevant authorities. Section I traces in summary form the legislative developments of 1963-~65 which culminated in the passage of the Water Quality Act by the 89th Congress. Section II provides a description of the water quality standards provisions of the Federal Act, as amended in 1965. State-Federal relationships (including pro- cedures for issuing Federal water quality standards), the role of the statutory Hearing Board, and limitations on Federal enforcement authority are considered. The Secretary's authority to insist on effluent criteria in water quality stand- ards is considered in Section III, with emphasis on both the statutory provisions and their legislative history. It is concluded that in the light of the clear Con- gressional rejection of authority to set such standards, coupled with the expressed legislative intent of avoiding arbitrary National standards, insistence on any effluent standard by the Secretary has no legal basis. The Secretary's require- ment of mandatory secondary treatment in particular is found to be both outside the Secretary's statutory authority and in direct conflict with the Water Quality Act's legislative history. Section IV outlines the basis for the conclusion that the Secretary has no statutory authority to demand that a so-called nondegradation requirement be Included in State water quality standards, or to require Federal approval of waste treatment methods or facilities. Section V examines the statutory requirements for revision of standards once they are approved and adopted, and Section VI outlines State alternatives when a requirement imposed by the Secretary is deemed arbitrary or without statutory basis. The function of the Hearing Board and the extent of judicial review available during the standard-setting and enforcement processes are considered~ I. THE WATER QUALITY ACT: 1963-1965 The drive for Federal water quality standards legislation, which culminated in the Water Quality Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 903-10 (1965), began two years earlier PAGENO="0170" 162 with Senator Muskie's introduction of 5. 649, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. ~ 466-466k (1964), in the first session of the 88th Congress. Prior to the adoption of the 1965 amendments the FWPC Act authorized Federal court action for the abateme~it of pollution of interstate waters only under limited circumstances, on an ad hoc basis, and after extensive and time-consuming procedural steps designed to provide every opportunity for voluntary compliance and State enfoycement action. At that time the Secretary could initiate enforcement action upon the request of State officials-or on his own authority in the case of ititerstate pollution- when he possessed information indicating that any pollution of interstate or navigable water endangered health or welfare. Detailed conference and hearing board procedures were required as initial ste~ps in the enforcement process. If the conference or hearing board machinery proved inadequate to resolve the problem, the Secretary was authorized to bring suit on behalf of the United States to abate such pollution, except that where the cause and effect were both within a single State, a written approval from the governor was a prerequisite to court action. The court was given jurisdiction to enter such judgment and enforcement orders as the public interest and the equities of the case might re- quire, in the light of the practicability and physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of the pollution. Dissatisfied with this cumbersome, after-the-fact enforcement procedure, Senator Muskie and other proponents of strong Federal water pollution legisla- tion began in 1963 to urge the enactment of a bill that would authorize the adoption of Federal water quality standards. The bill's stated purpose was "to establish a positive national water pollution policy of keeping waters as clean as possible as opposed to the negative policy of attempting to use the full capacity of such waters for waste assimilation." (Emphasis added.) To implement this purpose, the original bill provided for the promulgation of Federal water quality standards applicable to the quality of the receiving water and to the quality of the effluent as well.' Senate hearings on S. 649 w-ere held in June 1963. Hearings on ~. 649, ~. 737, ~. 1118 and 2. 1183. Before a $pecial $ubcommlttee on Air and Water Pollution of the $enate Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). Follow-lug these hearings and prior to reporting the Muskie bill, the Senate Committee made sig- nificant revisions. In particular, the stated purpose of the bill was amended to read: "(a) The purpose of this act is to enhance the quaTity and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abate- ment of water pollution." The vague phrase, "as clean as possible" was eliminated by the Committee and, significantly, it failed to reappear in any later drafts of the water quality legislation. Of at least equal significance, the water quality standards provision was revised to eliminate authority for the adoption of effluent controls and to provide for Federal standards only in the event that the States failed to develop standards found to be consistent with the Act. On October 16, 1963, the Senate accepted the bill in its amended version, with its new emphasis on the initial responsibility of the States to adopt standards applicable solely to the quality of the receiving in- terstate waters. House hearings were held in December 1963 and February 1964, spanning a total of twelve days. Testimony before the House Committee dealt primarily with the extent of Federal encroachment in the standard-setting procedure and the pro- posed reorganization of the Federal administrative machinery for water pollution control. Hearings on 2. 649, H.R. 3166, H.R. 4571, and HR. 6844 Before the House Comm. on Public Works, 88th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. (1963-64). 1 SectIon 4 provided: "In order to aid in preventing, controlling and abating pollution of interstate or navi- gable waters in or adjacent to any State or States which will or is likely to endanger the health or welfare of any persons. and to protect industries dependent on clean water such as the commercial shellfish and fishing industries, the Secretary shall, after reasonable notice and pul)lic hearing and in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and with other affected Federal. State and lOcal interests, issue regulations setting forth (al stand- ards of quality to be applicable to such interstate or navigable waters, and (b) the type, volume or strength of matter permitted to be discharged directly into interstate or navigable waters or reaching such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters. Such stand- ards of quality and of matter discharged shall be based on present and future uses of inter- state or navigable waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial and other legitimate uses," PAGENO="0171" 163 The Public Works Committee did not report the bill until September 1964. Sea H.R. Rep. No. 1885, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964). Although the House accepted the Senate's revision of the Act's stated purpose, it rejected the mandatory water quality standards provision. As the House Report states: "[T]he committee has modified the provision of section 5 of the bill as passed by the Senate to provide that the Secretary, instead of promulgating standards, may recommend standards ." for adoption by the States. Id. at 6. Final House action was not forthcoming during the 88th Congress, and 5. 649 died with adjournment. Senator Muskie renewed his fight in the 89th Congress. The new Muskie bill, S. 4, retained the purpose and water quality standards provisions of the Senate's amended version of S. 649 in the prior Congress. Because of the lengthy hearings held on S. 649, Senate hearings on 5. 4 were limited to a single day of testimony. And with only minor amendments, the Senate Public Works Committee reported S.4 on January 27, 1965. Following rejection of an amendment by Senator Tower, which would have given the Secretary the authority to issue reeonimemded-rather than manda- tory-water quality standards, the Senate passed the Water Quality Act of 1965 (S. 4) on January 28, 1965. Three days of House hearings were held in February 1965. See Hearings on ILl?. 3988 and 2. 4 Bejore the House Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). Again the House Committee rewrote the bill prior to reporting it. Although the stated purpose of the bill did not change, the water quality stand- ards provision in the Senate-passed version was eliminated. In its place, a severely limited standard-setting procedure, tied to the authorization of Federal funds, was inserted. See H.R. Rep. No. 215, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1965). The house version of 5. 4 was debated and passed by the House on April 28~ 1065. 111 Cong. Rec. 8652-90 (1965). Senate disagreement with the House amend- ments sent the bill to conference. As it emerged from the Conference Committee on September 17, 1965 (see HR. Rep. No. 1022, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)), the Water Quality Act of 1965 contained a water quality standards provision more like the Senate version of 5. 4 than its House counterpart. The compromise standards provision provided for the adoption of Federal standards only in the event that the State standards were found by the Secretary not to be consistent with the Act. Following final Congressional approval on September 21, 1965, the Water Quality Act was signed into law by the President on October 2, 1965. II. THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT The water quality standards provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965 were enacted as section 10(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Initially the governor or the State water pollution control agency must file a letter of intent indicating that the State will hold public hearings and thereafter adopt water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters within the State, as well as a plan for the implementation and enforcement of the criteria. The State's water quality criteria and implementation plan, adopted after public hearings, are submitted to the Secretary, who must determine whether such State criteria an plan are consistent with section 10(c) (3) of the Federal Act. That section provides that the standards adopted under the Act must "protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act," and that in establishing such standards, the use and value of the stream in question for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial and other legiti- mate uses must be considered. If the Secretary approves the State criteria and plan, they become the water quality standards applicable to the interstate waters in question under both State and Federal law. If the Secretary fails to approve the State standards as submitted (or if the State does not follow the established submission procedure), the Secretary may notify all interested parties and convene a conference of representatives of ap- propriate Federal departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States, muni- cipalities and industries involve. Having complied with the conference pro- cedure, the Secretary may prepare regulations setting forth the standards of water quality to be applicable to the interstate waters in question. The State is then given a six-month period within which to adopt water quality standards PAGENO="0172" 164 consistent with section 10(c) (3), or to petition for a public hearing. If the State neither revises its standards nor requests a hearing before the six-month period has elapsed, the Secretary must promulgate the standards for the waters in question. At any time prior to thirty days after the Secretary has promulgated his stand- ards, the governor of an affected State may petition the Secretary for a hearing, and the Secretary must call a public hearing to be held in or near one of the places where the water quality standards will take effect. The hearing is before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State affected by the standards must be given an opportunity to select one member of the Board, and the Department of Commerce and other affected Federal agencies are given an opportunity to select one Board member each. Not less than a majority of the Board must be made up of persons outside the Interior Depart- ment. Notice of the hearing must be published in the Federal Register and given to the State water pollution control agencies concerned at least thirty days prior to the day of the hearing. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board will make find- ings and approve or modify the standards promulgated by the Secretary. If the Hearing Board approves the standards as submitted, they will take effect upon receipt by the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recommendations. If the Hear- ing Board recommends a modification in the standards, the Secretary must pro- mulgate revised regulations setting forth water quality standards is accordance with the Board's recommendation. These revised standards will then become effective upon promulgation by the Secretary. Where the Secretary seeks to amend or revise existing standards, the full procedural requirements of section 10(c) apply, except that the Secretary may initiate revisions through the conference procedure in section 10(c) (2) without giving the State an opportunity to revise its standards on its own. As a prac- tical matter, the Secretary will probably give States an opportunity to act first and to adopt recommended revisions after a public hearing. Under any cir- cumstances, the Hearing Board procedure will be fully available to States if they question revisions promulgated by the Secretary. Federal enforcement under the Act is limited to those situations where the discharge of matter has caused a reduction of the water quality of a stream to a level below the stream standards (~ 10(c) (5)), or where there is pollution of waters which is endangering public health or welfare (10(g)). In the latter case. section 10(d), (e), (f) and (g) provides an extended conference and hearing procedure that must be followed before an enforcement suit may be brought, but in the case of an alleged violation of a stream standard, no con- ference or hearing prior to judicial determination is contemplated under the Act. Water quality standards violations cognizable under section 10(c) (5) are subject to abatement in accordance with the provisions of 10( (g) (1) and (2) of the Act. However, at least 160 days prior to the initiation of an abatement action, the Secretary must notify the violators and other interested parties of the standards' violations. Section 10(g) (1) provides that where water pol- lution originating in one State endangers the health or welfare of persons in a second State, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement. Where pollution and harm are confined to a single State, section 10(g) (2) provides for Federal abatement action only if the written consent of the State governor is obtained by the Secretary. This provision in 10(c) (5) that violatitons of water quality standards are subject to abatement in accordance with 10(g) (1) or (2) raises a question that apparently was not considered during the course of Congressional enact- ment. Section 10(g) provides for abatement of pollution only if it "is endanger- ing the health or welfare of persons." Section 10(c), however, contemplates judicial action to abate pollution based on violations of the water quality stand- ards themselves. It is not clear whether Congress intended that even in an ac- tion for violation of a standard it must be shown that the pollution is en- dan~ering health or welfare. Conceivably the courts might hold that a violation of the water quality standards is eouivalent to an endangerment of health or welfare. The Act makes it clear, however, that protection of the public health or welfare is just one of several bases for adoption of water quality standards, and it may well prove difficult to establish that violatiton of a standard en- dangers health or welfare in every case. PAGENO="0173" 165 In any suit brought on behalf of the United States under the provisions of section 10(c), the court must receive in evidence the transcript of the proceed- ings (if any were held) of the conference and Hearing Board convened during the standard-setting process, the recommendations made by the conference and Hearing Board (if any), and the recommendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary. In reviewing the standards, the court must give consideration "to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of complying with such standards," and the court may enter such judgment and issue such order enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. Thus, the court is given a broad jurisdictional grant to determine whether the standards, as established, are consistent with section 10(c) (3) and whether compliance with such standards is a reasonable requirement under the circumstances of the case. III. THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORy AIJTHORITy FOR NATIONAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS A review- of the statutory provisions and the legislative history of the Act clearly discloses the Congressional policy of maintaining the primary State re- sponsibility for the promulgation of water quality standards applicable to the receiving stream. This is apparent both from the elimination of any statutory authority for Nationwide effluent control and from the provisions of the Act aimed at preventing adoption of arbitrary National Standards. A~ The ~S'tatutory ~S'cheme Envisions $tandards Adapted to Local Conditions It is clear that arbitrary National standards are not contemplated under the Act. Section 1 states: `(b) . . . it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support and aid technical research relaing to the prevention and control of water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to mu- nicipalities in connection with the prevention and control of water pollution . (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the states with respect to the waters (in- cluding boundary waters) of such states." Furthermore, sections lO(c) (1) itself makes it clear that Congress desired the States, in the first instance, to establish the water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters. And in adopting the criteria, section 10(c) (3) directs State authorities to consider the actual use and value of specific waters, thus indicat- ing the direct relationship between standards and individual stream "uses" and "values." A reading of the legislative history of the 1965 Act brings sharply into focus the fact that Congress did not contemplate the setting of arbitrary, uniform National standards of water quality. Rather, it clearly rejected such a concept. Indeed, during the three-year period in which hearings were held, Administra- tion spokesmen continually rejected any notion of setting uniform National standards. Testifying before the Senate Public Works Subcommittee in 1963, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Celebrezze took the position that flexibility in setting standards was essential, both Procedurally and substantively. He noted that, as then written, the bill provided for the mandatory setting of water quality standards by the Secretary, but that the Department preferred such authority to be granted on a permissive basis instead. "We believe we can protect health and w-elfare more effectively and economically on a case-by-case basis than by in- volving the Government in an attempt to establish standards for all interstate and navigable waters at once." Hearings on 2. 64.9, 2. 737, 2. iii~ and $. 1183 Before a $pecial $ubcommjttee on Air c~ Water Pollution of the $enate Commit- tee on Public Works, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 460 (1963). In a similar vein was the Secretary's answer to the following question by Senator Miller: "Do you foresee or do you think we ought to have flexibility so that varvino' standards can be provided in regions, for example? Is there some kind of auide- line that Congress should establish within which limits an administrati~re agency should work ?" The Secretary replied: "I believe you have to have a degree of flexibility because standards will vary. You will need extremely high standards, for example, in shellfish areas. PAGENO="0174" 166 "The standards that you would apply, for example, to a small community on top of a mountain on a stream running through would probably be different than the standards that you would apply in areas where 8 million people are jammed together. "You have to have a degree of flexibility. You have to take all those factors into consideration. "We have some standards now. We have standards on shellfish, for example. "But I don't think that you can set standards for the total United States. You have to draw standards in the highly industrialized areas of this country which would be different than standards, as I say, in the lobster beds, shellfish beds, trout streams, or affecting the fishing industry-you would have to have different standards. "So you have to maintain a degree of flexibility." Id. at 470. The rejection of arbitrary National standards was again made clear during the House consideration of 5. 649, as passed by the Senate. During the hearings, Congressman Cramer (R.-Fla.) had occasion to question Assistant Secretary Quigley on this very point: Congressman CRAMER. "Setting standards before the fact is presently the func- tion of the States and this proposal is to give the Federal government the power to take over present State authority." Secretary QUIGLEY. "Not at all. 5. 649 specifically provides that the Secretary is not supposed to exercise his authority under this section if the States already have adequate standards. So, if the States elected to go the standards route and did a proper job, the Secretary of HEW would never have to do a thing under the section." Congressman CRAMER. "The Secretary decides whether the States have ade- quate standards and whether he should exercise that power." Secretary QUIGLEY. "Right. But this will not be done arbitrarily. He will not issue a fiat and that is it, because again in S. 649 it is specifically provided that if the standards are set and they are not complied with and this leads to an enforcement case, not only do you have all the routine in the enforcement procedure for resolving the question, ultimately, if you have to go to court, S. 649, directs the court, the judge, to second-guess the Secretary as to whether the standards he set are correct." Congressman CRAMER. "So the Secretary will set the standards nationwide." Secretary QuIGLEY. "That is not true, Mr. Cramer. That is not the case; that is not provided in 5. 649. There is nothing that says he will set the standards nationwide." Congressman CRAMER. "He will set standards applicable on a national basis." Secretary QUIGLEY. "No." Congressman CRAMER. "Either by regional application or otherwise." Secretary QuIGLEY. "He will set standards, but not nationwide." Congressman CRAMER. "On a regional basis?" Secretary QUIGLEY. "On a regional basis, a river basis, or on a section of a river basis." Hearings on & 649, H.R. 8166, H.R. 4571 and HR. 6844 Before the House Committee on Public Works, 80th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. 271-72 (1963-64). The House Committee also heard testimony from an Interior Department representative, Eugene D. Eaton, a Resources Program Specialist in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, engaged in a general discussion of the standard- setting problem during which he noted: "Theoretically water quality standards might be set so that there would not be any discharge of any amount whatsoever of the offending substances. Desir- able as this might be from the point of view of water purity, it is hardly a realistic approach in our highly urbanized and industrialized society. To be practical, in many cases, if may be necessary to formulate the stand- ards in relation to the factors just mentioned-that is, such things as the rate and volume of flow and the chemical and physical characteristics of the receiv- ing waters. In practice this could mean that often offending materials might have to be rigorously withheld during periods of low river flow, and perhaps they would be impounded or otherwise handled until river stages are high enough to provide safe dilution, or this could mean the allocation of discharge of offending material between subsurface and surface streams." Id. at 718. Thus, it may be seen that, even at this early stage in the development of Federal water quality legislation, the Interior Department apparently realized that the only practical approach to water quality standards was one based on the PAGENO="0175" 167 have to be rigorously withheld during periods of low river flow, and perhaps they relation of standards to local stream conditions and uses rather than National effluent controls. And in the House Report on S. 649, the Committee notes that the House changes in S. 649 were made to "assure the States, the various water pollution control organizations and private industry that the Federal Government does not desire to have an arbitrary establishment of such stand- ards." H.R. Rep. No. 1885, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964). During the Senate consideration of 5. 4 in 1965, Senator Muskie turned his attention to the question of arbitrary Federal standards: "I might point out that tyranny exists only where there is no appeal. I would think that if I were the Secretary of HEW, and I were considering implementing the standards section, which would be a new kind of authority, I would look at that section giving the courts power to review that very carefully before I established any arbitrary standards. "When the Congress says to the Secretary that his standard has to be prac- ticable, and he knows that that will be the test that will be ultimately applied, and he knows there are industries with financial resources to press this in the courts, some of which are represented here today, he knows that he has to meet that test, he cannot be arbitrary, and that he has to be practical." Hearings on 5. 4 Before a Special Subcommittee on Air c~ Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 85 (1965). Summing up the effect of the water quality standards provision in S. 4, the Senate Committee notes in its report (see S. Rep. No. 10, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1965)) "The authority given the Secretary is not arbitrary. He is constrained from arbitrary action by the public hearing and consulation requirements of the standard section and by the knowledge that, if he promulgates standards, com- pliance with such standards must ultimately meet the test of `practicability' in the courts, as provided in section 5(d) of the bill, should violation of such standards trigger an enforcement action. It is clear, also, that the enforcement conference and the hearing board must, in the light of the authority given the court, consider the `practicability' of the compliance with the standards." In the same vein was Senator Boggs' comment during the Senate debates: "[T]he members of the Committee and the staff have worked diligently In preparing language to make it abundantly clear that the States, interstate agen- cies, and industries will be fully protected from any arbitrary action by a Secre- tary of Health, Education and Welfare regarding established standards." 111 Cong. Rec. 1506 (1965). Assistant Secretary Quigley made a final attempt to clarify the Administra- tion's position in regard to uniform National standards and arbitrary action by the Secretary in his testimony before the House Public Works Committee: "We do not intend to set any national standards. This point was made on the record last year; it was made in the other body. Let me make it again. There Is no intent, no purpose in the standard section, as I understand it, to set na- tional standards." Hearings on H.R. 3988 and 5. 4 Before the House Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 59 (1965). During the debate on S. 4, many Congressmen expressed the view that the primary responsibility for establishing water quality standards remained with the States and that uniform National standards arbitrarily set by the Secretary were not contemplated. See 111 Cong. Rec. 8035 (1905) (remarks of Congress- man Brown, R.-Ohio), 8657 (remarks of Congressman Cramer, R.-Fla.), 8001 (remarks of Congressman Randell, D.-Mo.), 8005 (remarks of Congressman Harsha R.-Ohio), and 8609 (remarks of Congressman Cleveland, R.-N.H.). Testimony by FWPCA Commissioner Quigley during the 1961 hearings on water pollution is also of interest, although post-enactment discussion before a Congressional Committee cannot, of course, be considered to be a part of the legislative history. The following colloquy took place between Commissioner Quigley and Congressman Rarsha (R.-Ohio): Congressman HAR5HA. ". . . tnjow, during the past year or so your office has issued several sets of guidelines and criteria and standards and so forth to be used in developing water quality criteria and in reviewing the States' standards. Is it your intention that the review of State standards be so demand- ing upon the States in order to have their standards accepted that they must establish the very same criteria that you wish to establish as Federal standards for water pollution control ?" PAGENO="0176" 168 Commissioner QuIGLEY. "The answer is `No,' but I think I will let Dr. Hirsch, who is responsible for it, comment in detail." Dr. HIRsCH. "Generally, the guidelines that we issue have been of a broad nature rather than being very specific. "The areas, I think, that we have been most specific with in working with the States have been areas of technical, scientific fact rather than policy. "In other words, if a body of water is desired for a certain type of fishery, we might be specific in working with the State to indicate what level of oxygen or what temperature level would be necessary to support that fishery. That is a matter of scientific information and not a matter of policy decision. "In the policy areas, however, our guidelines, we think, have been rather general." Hearings on Water Pollution Before the House Comm. on Public Works, 00th Cong., 1st Sess. 107-OS (1067). Later in the colloquy, another interesting exchange took place: Congressman HARSHA. "I just have one other question, Mr. Quigley, or any member of your staff. It is my impression that Congress defines `pollution' not as a discharge per se, but rather as a quality which impairs water use. "Now, am I accurate in that assumption?" Commissioner QUIGLEY. "I would certainly accept that, without checking the act. That is certainly my working definition of it." Congressman HARSHA. "All right. Now, does the Federal Water Control Admin- istration believe that the discharge must be eliminated before clean water can be obtained?" Commissioner QUIGLEY. "As a theoretical question, I do not think the answer to that could ever be yes. I think as a practical matter, in many instances, this is the only way you are going to eliminate the pollution. But I could recognize a situation where because of the flow, high quality of it, and lack of other discharges, that you would not have to." Id. at 110-11. Thus, it may be seen that throughout Congressional consideration of the legislation and as recently as a year ago, the Federal authorities directly con- cerned with enforcement of the standards provision of the Water Quality Act were speaking in terms of broad general guidelines, as opposed to arbitrary Federal standards. This view was widely and consistently reflected in Congress and in the language of the Act. B. The Rejection of Federal Effluent Control Authoritij The original version of S. 640, as introduced, provided for both effluent and stream quality controls.1 As Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Cele- brezze noted in a letter to Chairman McNamara of the Senate Committee on Public Works: "This subsection [section 9(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by section 4 of the Muskie bill] would direct the Secretary to issue regu- lations setting forth standards of quality and the type, volume or strength of mat- ter permitted to be discharged in interstate or navigable waters." Hearings on 5. 64.9, 5. 737, 5. 1118 and 5. 1183 Before a Special Subconvin. on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1963). Similarly, Secretary TJdall noted that: "This new subsection requires the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to issue regulations . . . setting forth (1) standards of quality applicable to interstate and navigable waters, and (2) the type, volume, or strength of matter permitted to be discharged directly into interstate or navigable waters or reach- ing such waters after discharge into a tributary of suc'h waters." Id. at 9. A number of witnesses strongly objected to Federal authority to set effluent standards, as a" intrusion into an area traditionally reserved for the States. Sam Thompson, testifying on behalf of the Council of State Governments, noted that: "[T]he portions of 5. 649 which would give the Federal Government power to set binding effluent standards, is the most crucial part of this legislation." Id. at 298. Mr. Thompson further noted that: "If the Federal Government is to have the power to set effluent standards, there will be nothing which State pollution control agencies can do which the Federal Government cannot also do." Id. 1 See the text of the standards provision at this stage, as quoted in the footnote on page ~, supra. PAGENO="0177" 169 In a similar vein, Dr. Natale Colosi, Chairman of the Interstate Sanitation Commission, testified that: "S. 649 is of great concern to the Interstate Sanitation Commission, primarily because the bill proposes to give a Federal agency power to set effluent stand- ards. "If some agency of the Federal Government is now to have authority to set an effluent standard, great confusion will ensue. "Under existing Federal law, Congress has declared the responsibilities and rights of the States in pollution control shall be primary. Where single States acting alone may not be in a position to cope adequately with the problems of an area, the act directs the encouragement of interstate compacts for pollution control. We trust that the sponsors and supporters of S. 649 continue to seek the buttressing and encouragement of State and interstate efforts. The bill leaves these provisions of present law intact. However, the effluent standard provision would vitiate this declared policy of Congress." Id. at 581-82. When the Senate Committee reported 5. 649, the provision granting authority to set effluent standards was noticeably absent. The standards provision reported out by the Committee contemplated the setting of water quality standards for the receiving waters alone. During the two remaining years prior to passage, the water quality legislation was the subject of extensive hearings and Congressional debate. However, with the exception of a passing reference, the effluent standards provision failed to occupy the attention of Congress and never reappeared in the legislation. Its rejection is summed up by John E. Kinney, a sanitary engineering consultant, who testified on S. 4 before the House Committee: "The original Senate bill a year ago had a provision to establish water quality and waste discharge. The committee was under the impression that standards on discharges had to be provided before standards on stream quality could be established. When they learned it unnecessary-you can set standards on a stream which has no discharges to it-the committee ruled out standards on discharges." Hearings on H.R. 3988 and 5. 4 Before the House Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 323 (1965). C. The Secondary Treatment Requirement-A National Ej2iuent Standard In the face of the clear rejection of effluent control by Congress and the con- sistent Congressional and Administration declarations that arbitrary National standards were not to be set under the Act, the Department of the Inerior has established guidelines for water quality standards for interstate waters which represent an attempt to achieve National effluent controls by administrative flat. See Hearings on Water Pollution Befor~3 House Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 86-88 (1967). The following "Policy Guidelines" are included: "3. Water quality criteria should be applied to the stream or other receiving water or portions thereof. . . . In the absence of appropriate numerical values or biological parameters, criteria should consist of verbal descriptions in sufficient detail as to show clearly the quality of water intended (e.g., `substantially free from oil') ." "8. No standard will be approved which allows any waste amenable `to treatment or control to be discharged into any interstate water without treatment or control regardless of the water quality criteria and water use or uses adopted. Further, no standard will be approved which does not require all wastes, prior to discharge into any interstate water, to receive the best practicable treatment or control unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser degree of treatment or control will provide for water quality and enhancement commensurate with proposed present and future water uses." (Emphasis added.) It seems apparent that the Interior Department first agreed in Guideline 3 to follow the Congressional command of set~ng stream standard's, and then de- cided in Guideline 8 to attempt to improve effluent standards as well. On the basis of Guideline 8, the Department has attempted to impose a uniform requirement of secondary treatment or the equivalent on all State water quality standards. See Statement of Secretary of Interior Uclall Before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (March 27, 1968). Such a requirement has no basis in either the statute itself or the Act's extensive legislative history. Secretary Udall in his 1968 Senate testimony (see Hearings on Water Polli,- tion Before the Snbeomm. on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (March 27, 1968)) indicated that Federal 94-376-68-12 PAGENO="0178" 170 authorities have had the general objective of mandatory secondary treatment for five years and that such a requirement is being imposed on all States. If this was in fact the case, it is surprising that this view was not expressed to Congress by Administration officials, and that no attempt was made to rein- state authority for such an effluent control in the bill. Such a requirement violates both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Act in at least three particulars. First, it is clear that the Secretary has attempted to establish a rigid Na- tional standard in direct conflict with the express legislative intent and greatly at variance with statements of Administration witnesses during the course of the hearings on the Water Quality Act. If any single theme can be drawn from the legislative history of the Water Quality Act, it is that arbitrary, rigid Na- ~tional standards were not acceptable to Congress. Secondly, the requirement of secondary treatment, whether viewed as a "kind of treatment" or as a "degree of waste removal" (as Secretary Udall has sug- gested in his recent testimony), can exist only as a control on the quality of the discharge, rather than the quality of the receiving water. It is thus an effluent standard of the type rejected by Congress at an early stage in the history of the water quality legislation. As such, it is clearly beyond the Secret~try's authority under the Act. Finally, since the Secretary's approval can be conditioned only on State com- pliance with the requirements of section 10(c) (3), any attempt to impose greater requirements on the States is a usurpation of their primary authority in the ~fleld of water pollution control. ~iv. THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR A NONDEGRADATION STANDARD Recently, the Secretary has sought to impose an additional uniform require- ment as a condition on the approval of State water quality standards. Three Federal Guidelines are relevant-numbers 1 and 5, as well as the aforementioned Guideline 8: "1. Water quality standards should be designed to `enhance the quality of water.' If it is impossible to provide for prompt improvement in water quality at the time initial standards are set, the standards should be designed to prevent any increase in pollution. In no case will standards providing for less than existing water quality be acceptable. "5. Water quality criteria should be accompanied by a description of present water quality and uses, together with uses expected in the future and the water quality required to make those uses possible. The water quality standards pro- posed by a State should provide for: (a) Potential and future water uses as well as the present intended use and uses; (b) The upgrading and enhancement of water quality and the use or uses of streams or portions thereof that are presently affected by pollution (c) The maintenance and protection of quality and use or uses of water now of a high quality or of a quality suitable for present and potential future uses." Hearings on Water Pollution Before the House Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 87 (1967). (Emphasis added.) The Interior Department has used these guidelines as the basis for the "nondegradation" standard, which it seeks to superimpose upon all State water quality criteria. On February 8, 1968, Secretary Udall announced that, in the future, every State will be required to adopt a nondegradation provision sub- stantially in accordance with the following language: "Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of a State will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social develop- :ment and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source of pollution or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology, and, since these :are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be devel- oped cooperatively." Press Release, Office of the Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, Feb. 8, 1968. PAGENO="0179" 171 In his 1908 Senate testimony, Secretary Udall indicated that in his opinion `imposition of a nondegradation standard comes within the intent of the 1965 Act. And Senator Muskie stated that he and the Secretary had agreed on this principle before the "Guidelines" were put together. See hearings Before a *SubcOrnm. on Air aiul- Water Pollution of the Senate `Comm. on Public TVorks, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (March 27, 1968) (testimony of Secretary of Interior TJdall). But if Secretary Udall and Senator Muskie had agreed upon this inter- pretation of the Act prior to establishing the guidelines, they failed to take a critical look at the Act itself. Section 10(c) (3) directs the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appropriate State authority to take into consideration the use and value of a given body of water when establishing the water quality standards. Such uses include public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agri- cultural, industrial and other legitimate uses. This clear statutory direction is further reinforced by the Act's legislative history. The Senate Committee made clear the direct relationship between stand- * ards and uses in 1963 and reaffirmed its position two years later: "The Committee intends that water quality standards should be applied on the basis of the water quality requirements of present and future uses of the stream -or sections of the stream, after due consideration of all the factors and variables involved. S. Rep. No. 556, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1963) ; S. Rep. No. 10, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1965). See also "Additional Views in Support of S. 4," a statement by the Republican membership of the House Public Works Committee: "Standards of water quality are concededly badly needed, but should be estab- lished by the State and local agencies, which are most familiar with all aspects of the matter in a given locality, including the economic impact of establishing and enforcing stringent standards of water quality. Authorizing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to promulgate and enforce such standards to ~the exclusion of the States would obviously discourage the States and local agen- cies from developing their own plans and standards fOr water quality and purity. And it would place in the hands of a single Federal official the power to estab- lish zoning measures over-to control the use of-land within watershed areas in all parts of the United States. Such power over local affairs has never been ~vested in a Federal official, and we are opposed to doing it now." H.R. Rep. No. 215, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1905). The nondegradation standard is clearly the sort of arbitrary National standard that is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of State adopted stream standards based on stream value and use. This inconsistency is apparent from the language -of Secretary Udall's press release of February 8, 1968. He states, "I have con- cluded that in order to be consistent with the basic policy and objective of the Water Quality Act, a provision in all State standards substantially in accordance with the following is required . . . ." What follows is the nondegradation re- quirement. Additionally, the Secretary notes, "Accordingly, I have decided that rio standards will be approved from here on that do not contain a statisfactory antidegradation provision." Plainly the Secretary has issued an inflexible, arbi- `trary order requiring the superimposition of a uniform National standard over all State water quality criteria. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the -Secretary's recent claim before the Senate Committee: "Through all the standards setting process runs the important consideration of reasonableness. We do not seek clean water for its own sake, but for man's benefit. On balance, our clean water efforts must therefore be reasonable." State- ment of Secretary Udall Before the Subcomm. on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (March 27, 1968). And clearly, the fiat nondegradation requirement goes beyond even Senator Muskie's pre-passage view of the need, where practicable, to maintain the present quality of high quality waters: "Let me say this, in addition: You see, the present law states that the Secretary should act for the Federal Government whenever there is pollution `which endangers the health and welfare of any persons.' "Now with respect to streams now contaminated we are talking ex post facto situations. Under 5. 4 our objective would be `to improve water quality to the point where the health and welfare of persons are more broadly and effectively served. "With respect to uncontaminated streams, our objective is to preserve insofar as we can the current quality of those streams in the light of all use require- PAGENO="0180" 172 ments that can be anticipated legitimately in the public interest." Hearings on ,8. 4 Before a I~pecial Subcomm. on Air and Water Pollution of the ~S'enate Comm. on Public Works, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 82 (1905). (Emphasis supplied.) It is apparent that Senator Muskie did not envision a uniform nondegradation requirement unrelated to stream uses based on local needs. Rather, his statement reflects a more practical approach of maintaining present water quality in the light of all legitimate use requirements. Furthermore, the nondegradation standard would be unenforceable under section 10(c) (5) of the Federal Act. That section provides for the abatement of any discharge which reduces water quality below levels established in accord- ance with section 10(c). No provision exists for abating any discharge which reduces present water quality unless such discharge also reduces the water quality below the use and value related standard set in accordance with section 10(c) (3). Of equal significance is the fact that the nondegradation requirement serves to eliminate the primary authority of the States in the field of water pollutioa control. This too is clearly contrary to the intent of the Federal Act, which directs the States to assume the primary position in regard to standard-setting, pollution control, and pollution abatement: "[I]t is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in prevent- ing and controlling water pollution . . ." Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 1(b). "Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters shall be encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to court order under subsection (h), be displaced by Federal enforcement action." Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 10(b). Finally, the Secretary's nondegradation requirement would in effect dis- place State primacy in establishing water quality standards and in preventing and controlling pollution contrary to the clear command of section 10(c) (1). Permission to lower the quality of "high quality" waters would require a determination of justification by both the State involved and the Secretary. But under the Act the Secretary lacks the authority to require Federal preclearance of treatment facilities or of particular discharges into a stream. Further, the additional requirement that new or increased pollution of "high quality" waters be permitted only if the new installation provides "the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology" is an attempt to impose effluent standards without statutory basis and to require a degree of treatment that is inconsistent with the enforcement criteria of "practicability" and "physical and economic feasibility." In any event, failure to install a par- ticular type or degree of treatment facility is not a violation of the Act unless such failure also results in a reduction of stream quality below established levels. V. REVISION OF APPROVED STANDARDS Although an FWPCA release (March 18, 1968) indicates that 28 States' standards have received "approval," and Secretary Tjdall has indicated that his Department hopes to "approve" all State standards by June 1968 (see Hear- ing Before a ~S'ubcomm. on Air and Water Pollution of the senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (March 27, 1968) (testimony of Secretary LTdall)), he has also stated: "We intend to go back to the States whose standards were approved last sum- nier, based on the new policy and on the experience which we have gained to date, and, where changes are needed in the standards, we will request them. "We have not yet formally asked the ten States whose standards were ap- proved last summer to adopt the anti-degradation language, except the State of Idaho. I have publicly indicated that this will be expected." Statement of Secre- tary of Inierior Udall Before Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Comm. on Public Works, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 9 (March 27, 1968). In this context, the statutory procedures for revision of approved standards become particularly relevant. Once approved under section 10(c) (1). State water quality standards become the applicable Federal standards under the Federal Act. As such, they may be revised only in accordance with established procedures. In particular, section 6(b) of the Model State Act ("Suggested State PAGENO="0181" 173 \7~Tater Pollution Control Act, Revised") issued by the Department of the Interior, states: "Prior to establishing, amending, or repealing standards of water quality the Board shall, after due notice, conduct public hearings thereon. Notice of public hearing shall specify the waters for which standards are sought to be adopted, amended or repealed and the time, date and place of such hearing." Thus, any attempt to adopt a revised standard on the State level without a full public hearing would result in standards which are invalid under the "Model Act" and would be unenforceable in any State having a similar statutory requirement. In addition, section 10(c) (1) of the Federal Act requires the States to hold public hearings prior to adoption of water quality criteria. It is logical that section 10(c) (1) also be read to require public hearings prior to the revision of existing water quality standards. Such was the intent of the Senate Com- mittee: "Accordingly, the bill provides authority for the Secretary to establish stand- ards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof. The standards are to be formulated in accordance with accepted administra- tive procedures calling for notice and public hearing and consultation with affected Federal, State, interstate and local interests and are to be such as to protect public health or welfare and to enhance the quality and value of interstate waters. Standards would also be subject to revision either by the Secretary on his own or when petitioned to do so by the Governor of any affected State. The same procedure for hearing and consultation will be followed in revisions as when standards were being formulated." S. Rep. No. 10, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1905). In any event, sections 10(c) (2) and (4) establish detailed requirements for the revision of existing standards. Section 10(c) (2) states that when the Secre- tary desires to revise an existing standard, he must call a conference in the same manner as that required for the original adoption of Federal standards. Furthermore, the Secretary must comply with the full Hearing Board procedures of section 10(c) (4) before any revised standard can be adopted over State opposition. Thus, when the Secretary requests that a State adopt any provision that is not included within its water quality standards as previously approved, such as a non-degradation standard, the procedural requirements of section 10(c) must be observed, as well as those existing under appropriate State law. Any revised standards imposed without regard to these procedural requirements would be invalid and unenforceable. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS When a State either refuses to adopt the minimum water quality standards deemed essential by the Secretary or refuses to revise existing standards to meet new minimum levels imposed by the Secretary, the administrative review process of sections 10(c) (2) and (4) becomes applicable, and affected States have a right to a hearing before a Hearing Board, as set forth in section II of this Memorandtun. The legislative history of the 1965 Act makes it clear that the scope of the Board's inquiry in reviewing a proposed standard will be broad. As the Senate Committee notes in its Report (see S. Rep. No. 10, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1905)) "The authority given the Secretary is not arbitrary. He is constrained from arbitrary action by the public hearing and consultation requirements of the standards section and by the knowidege that, if he promulgates standards, com- pliance with such standard must ultimately meet the test of `practicability' in the courts, as provided in section 5(cT) of the bill, should violation of such standards trigger an enforcement action. It is clear, also, that the enforcement conference and the hearing board must, in the light of the authority given the court, con- aider the `practicability' of compliance with the standards." (Emphasis sup- plied.) The Hearing Board review process was further commented on by Congress- man Blatnik, the House sponsor of the Water quality legislation: "This Hearing Board . . . can then do either one of two things: Approve the standards and recommend approval at the same time to the Secretary, where- upon he may promulgate them and enforce them. Or the board may modify the PAGENO="0182" 174 proposed standards. These modifications are reported hack with a recommenda- - *tion to the Secretary of HEW. He shall conform and comply with these recom- mendations of the hearing board and promulgate these standards. We have a process for establishing standards which will be a joint operation at which not only the Federal Government and its agencies, other than the Secretary of HEW shall be represented, but the States affected shall be represented, private indus- tries shall be represented, and the general public shall be represented. In fact, all members affected by the standards are represented on the board, and the rec- ommendations of the board shall govern the final decision of HEW." 111 Cong. Rec. 24588 (1905). (Emphasis supplied.) Judicial review of Federal water quality standards is provided in an enforce- ment action under section 10(c) (5) (see section II of this Memorandum). The Act is silent about the availability of judicial review of the Hearing Board's decision prior to a charge of violation,2 and it is doubtful that such review may be obtained by States under the general statutory authority for review of ad- ministrative action, which does not apply to action by "agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them 5 U.S.C. §~ 701, 702, 704 (Supp. II 1905-07). See Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, 245 F.2d 579 (3d Cir. 1957) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. Chicago Burlington ~ O.R.R., 225 F. Supp. 11 (D.D.C.), a-ff'd, 331 F.2d 1020 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 918: (1904). This accords with Senator Muskie's understanding of the statutory re- view machinery.3 Thus, a State would apparently have no right to obtain judicial review of a Hearing Board's decision either approving or recommending modification of standards promulgated by the Secretary. Review under section 10(c) (5) is- available only in the course of an enforcement action for abatement of pollution, and the State would presumably not be a party to the litigation. But if the StatE objected to standards as approved or modified following a Hearing Board de- cision, and if such standards were sought to be enforced by the Secretary under section 10(c) (5), the court might be expected to permit the State to intervene as a defendant in the enforcement action and thereby to challenge the legal or factual basis for the standard in question. Mr. MCEWEN. The answer from the Federal Water Pollution Ad- ministration still stands, that- it could mean any or all of these things ~ Mr. COFFEY. Depending upon the case that they decided on each situation what. they meant. Mr. MOE WEN. That is all. Mr. SULLIVAN. Are you saying that the Secretary was requiring the States to go above and beyond what the standards were, to make the water as clean as possible, Mr. Coffey? Mr. COFFEY. Yes, I do not think there are any objections to meeting the State's water quality standards as they were adopted. What the secondary treatment and the non-degradation policy both do is override any numbers of implementation plans which the States have submitted for approval and which the States have adopted after public hearings; and the point that was made this morning by Secre- tary TJdall, he would have to be consulted on any lowering of water qualities. This does not apply to lower the water quality below what the State standards are. It applies to lowering the quality below what is now existing, which may be above the State standard. 2 Prior to Senate passage of S. 4. Senator Cooper offered an amendment which would have added additional procedural safeguards, including judicial review, at the standard-setting stage. The amendment was rejected by the Sen-ate Committee and a: more limited version was thereafter rejected by the Senate. See 111 Cong. Rec. 1524-31 (1965). "As I understand, the Administrative Procedure Act provides only for administrative review of the regulations. Judicial review is provided when enforcement action is under~ taken but in the establishment of rules and regulations only adminIstrative review is provided." .111 Cong. Rec. 1530 (1065) (remarks of Senator Muskie). PAGENO="0183" 175 MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY IN CLEAN STREAMS Mr. MCCARTHY. Of course, are we not getting into a basic question ? Alaska, with. untouched streams,, adopt water quality standards with their degradated streams in view, say, those around industries. Way' up, they have crystal streams and lakes. Should those streams be per- mitted to be degradated to a lower quality? I mean, eventually we may have to vote more money so they can go and clean that one up, so it seems to me, first that the water quality standards are sort of a minimum. Some streams are pure. I personally do not see why they should be permitted to degradate them because we are going to have to put in money to clean them up. Here we are spending billions to clean up degradated streams. How can we, at the same time, tolerate the policy that permits pure water to be lowered? Mr. COFFEY. Well, I think there are two points in your question. One; as long as the use which the State has determined for those waters are not impaired, we are no't talking about pollution. It is only when those uses are impaired that we are talking about it. If those uses remain the same, we would never have to restore the original quality of that water. And, No. 2, on your cost question, there is a cost involved with keep- ing the water a~t that level as well as the cost of restoring water to that level. Mr. MCCARTHY. What is the cost of keeping them at that level? Mr. COFFEY. The cost may be the economic development of that~ State. STATE DETERMINATION OF WATER USE Mr. MCEWEN. It seems to me what we are dealing with here is whether or not we are going to let the people of the State of Alaska or any `other State, through their elected officials, determine what stand-' ards they want to set, what is best for them. In other words, if the State of Alaska wants to decide, Mr. Chair- man, that their greatest interest lies in keeping every stream a trout or' salmon stream, and this is what the people of the sovereign State of Alaska want, they can set their st'andards and they will `have nothing' but trout streams, no paper mills, no industry of any kind that would. affect that water. If, on the other hand, they want to set standards near the estuaries' in some parts of these streams that will be less than a trout water' stream, believing, in their judgment, that best serves the interest of tile people of the State of Alaska, then that, as I understood the `law we have passed, saying the State should set these standards, and have them approved by the Water Pollution Administration, that is what was intended. In my own district I am proud to say we have some beautiful trout streams which, under the classification by our own people in the State' of New York, have been classified as tha.t type of water to be main- tamed as trout streams.. But, by heavens, we have not been trying to make trout streams out of some of our industrial streams. We have said if the `water is good enough for industrial use in some cases, or PAGENO="0184" 176 for potable water supply or in some cases trout streams, we are going to maintain them as we have classified them. Now, we could, if we wished, in our State, or any State as I see it, set standards that would absolutely preclude any future industrial growth. Mr. COFFEY. That is correct. Mr. MCEWEN. That is what we could do. What I am concerned about~ and I appreciate your statement here, Mr. Coffey, I think it highlights this, that there apparently is now some thinking in the FederalWater Pollution Administration that certainly does not derive, in my view, from the law that we in this committee took up and passed unanimously in this House of Representatives. There is a whole new concept here that we are going to make what- ever it is better than it is, or we are not going to ever lower any quality in any water, any more effluents, though it may not affect the standard of the water. I think this is extremely important, Mr. Chairman. Hearings on this legislation have, if you will, given this committee an oversight, an opportunity here to find out what has been going on, and I can assure you it has been enlightening to me, your testimony and other testimony here today. But I had no idea how far we had gotten away from what was spelled out explicitly, clearly, in the law that we enacted. Now, we have, as somebody has observed, both an affluent and an effluent society. It seems that the more we eat and the more we produce, the greater our affluence, and the more effluents we have. If we want to give up some of our good living and cut back on the goods and services that we enjoy, we can reduce both our effluents and our affluence. WTe have to recognize this, and I think the States are the agencies to look at this in relation to the immediate need of our own people in these waterways. What is their need for potable water supply, for industry, for trout streams, for recreation? I do not believe that anyone, including my good friend, the Secretary, or anyone else here in Washington, has the wisdom to decide all of this here in Washington. Certainly we have had industrial growth, and we hope we will continue to have it in America, and I hope some of it will be in my congressional district. I hope we will be allowed to have standards that will accommodate industry as well as other uses that we want to make of our water. I thank you again. Mr. Coffey. I think your testimony is most helpful. Mr. SULLIVAN. Not to belabor the point, but has not the Secretary modified his policy to this extent that exceptions may affect the eco- nomic or well-being of a particular State? Mr. COFFEY. At his discretion. Mr. SULLIVAN. He has that policy approach, does he not? Mr. COFFEY. The burden of proof there, even though the State board of quality standards would not be violated, any degradation in policy would have to get his office clearance to locate any new or increased source of pollution. And I cannot help but add that this does not only relate to industry. You cannot even have a new town spring up. Mr. SULLIVAN. This is the point I raised about the social and eco- nomic well-being. It covers both of the points. PAGENO="0185" 177 Mr. COFFEY. I do not know if anyone here in Washington is in high enough position to determine just what is best for the social and economic well-being of every State. Mr. SULLIVAN. But there is this modification in his original position. Mr. COFFEY. In language. It has not come to practice. Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. I see that Mr. James F. Boyer, project scientist of the Bituminous Coal Research, is here in the committee room. Mr. Boyer, we are pleased to recognize you. STATEMENT OF JAMES F. BOYER, SR., PROJ1ECT SCIENTIST,. BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INC. Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am James: F. Boyer, Jr., project scientist, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., and director of technical services for the Coal Industry Advisory Com- mittee to ORSANCO. I am presenting this statement on behalf of the National Coal As- sociation, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., the research affiliate of NCA, and the Coal Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio River Valley Water Sau itation Commission. On behalf of the various groups I represent here today, I want to' express our appreciation for the opportunity of presenting to the com- mittee our views on the important technical and research aspects of mine drainage prevention and control, and on the legislation uow be- fore the committee. We endorse those sections of 5. 2760 which amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for mine water pollution con- trol demonstration projects and which will authorize additional funds for demonstrating feasible and practical techniques of eliminating or' controlling acid or other mine water pollution. We are concerned,. however, with the language proposed in one section of the bill, and recommend that it be amended. Section 2 of the bill would add a new section 7 to the act covering area acid and other mine water pollution control demonstrations. Sub- section (c) (2) would set forth as a condition for Federal participa- tion in such projects the following: That the State shall provide legal and practical protection to the project demonstration area to insure against any activities which will cause future acid or other mine water pollution. We agree that the demonstration areas must be protected if the pro- gram envisaged in this legislation is to be effective. We believe it is possible, however, that this language if enacted without change, could be interpreted by some State authorities as a basis for prohibiting future mining within specific demonstration areas. Such an interpre- tation would result in the permanent denial of rights to part of the Nation's coal reserves. While the loss probably would be small in terms of total U.S. reserves of coal, denying access to specific deposits of coal would be extremely significant to the owners of or lessors of the mineral rights concerned. To avoid the possibility of an adverse interpretation of the cur- rent language of section 7(b) (2), we recommend the bill be amended to incorporate the following provisions: PAGENO="0186" 178 First, prior to final selection of an acid pollution control demonstra- hon project site, coal reserves that will no longer be recoverable as a result of the project will be evaluated, and the owner or lessor of the mineral rights will be compensated equitably for the loss of rights to mine the coal. Second, if possible to do so, before work is initiated at the dem- onstration site, the owner or lessor of the rights to the coal should be given sufficient time to mine the coal that otherwise would be lost. In the event it is not possible for the owner or lessor to mine, in a diligent and workmanlike manner, all of the coal involved, just com- pensation should be paid in the manner suggested. Third, if mining within the demonstration area is permitted after ~reclamation has been completed, the operator of the mine will be liable *for damages to the control measures installed and prior to opening the rnine will be required to post bond in an amount sufficient to defray the repair costs. The amendments we have suggested would, in our opinion, assure payment of equitable compensation for loss of rights to coal that could be lost in connection with this program, or permit coal to be mined under conditions which would protect the government's investment in the program. While the bill would authorize the Federal Government to share the cost of any demonstration project, it does not mention Federal sharing of subsequent costs of maintaining the pollution control meatures in- stalled. We believe that this omission should be covered with an amendment specifically authorizing maintenance cost sharing. Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., has been searching since 1944, in The field and in the laboratory, for methods to prevent stream pollution from coal mine waters. Other efforts by research organizations and the coal industry can be traced back 50 years, yet it has only been ~during the past 10 years that combined efforts of industry and gov- `ernment have been accelerated sufficiently to produce significant-al- though not yet adequate-technological advances. Our support of the program set forth in this bill, with the amend- ments we have recommended, is founded on an awareness on the part of the coal industry of the problems still remaining to be solved in controlling mine drainage pollution. As you are aware, stream pollution by mine drainage is as old as the mining industry. Shortening the term to "drainage" adds years to The history of the problem. Many coal seams were first located by observation of stretches of red water-stained by iron precipi- tates-downstream from natural coal outcrops. Coal mining did not create the problem, but it compounded it in the course of supplying the big coal tonnages demanded by industrial growth. Lengthening the key term to "acid mine drainage" calls for more important qualification. Mine water discharges can be either acid or alkaline, and even change from one to the other in the life of a mine-from alkaline during development to acid during retreat min- ing, and then back to alkaline after the mine has been abandoned for a time. Even the term "acid" in connection with mine drainage is frequently misunderstood to conjure up the picture of a stream of corrosive sul- furic acid. In fact, little or no free sulfuric acid is present in mine PAGENO="0187" 179 ~water discharges. The unstable salts present in the solution hy- drolyze-decompose-and in some cases oxidize to form free hydrogen ions. To the chemist, an "acid" condition exists in a solution contain- ing an excess of hydrogen ions. A common indicator of water condi- tion-acid, alkaline, or neutral-is pH, which is merely a measure- ment of the concentration of hydrogen ions in solution. When the con- centrations of hydrogen ions (acid) and hydroxyl ions (alkaline) are equal, water is neutral and has a pH 7 on the scale. The more "acid" the water, the lower the pH number; the more alkaline, the higher. The pH measurement is a useful indicator of mine water quality but does not establish the true polluting quality. The average cola soft drink, for example, has a pH 3.5. Mine water is not in chemical equilibrium but changes with varia- tions in PH, temperature, contact with alkaline materials, and dilution. All "acid" mine discharges, then, do not result in stream pollution. Mine drainage can contaminate a stream-so does any foreign matter-but it does not become a pollutant until it causes a quality change that makes a stream unsuitable for defined uses. The free hydrogen ion content of coal mine discharges can range from less than 10 p.p.m. to as much as 10,000 p.p.m. Also, many streams have a * natural ability to neutralize mildly acidic mine discharges-for ex- ample, vast sections of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and other midwest States are underlain by limestone, and the natural leaching of the limestone makes streams highly alkaline. This alkaline condition accounts for the many sales of water softeners in the Mid- west. The control of mine drainage need not be stretched in all cases to balancing acidity and alkalinity in a neutral condition. Aside from the fact that pH measurement in the field is complicated by such variables as the temperature and composition of waLer, mine water acidity is more than just pH. All metal ions that hydrolyze in water contribute to acidity; in many cases sulfuric acid is not involved at all. A laboratory procedure is needed to determine the degree of neutralization required to control the acidity of a given mine drainage discharge. Meanwhile, standardization of analytical methods for measurements of acidity and other mine water properties is a major research job in itself. BCR is attempting to develop and standardize mine water analysis, on its own and through membership on an American Society for Test- ing and Materials technical committee on industrial water. BCR has planned field study of mine water characteristics to guide analytical procedures it is developing, including a spectrographic method for `analyzing metal ions in mine water. Cooperating with BCR in fund- ing this effort are the Pennsylvania Coal Research Board and the United Mine Workers of America. BCR is also seeking support from the Federal `Water Pollution Control Administration to aid the research on the basic chemistry of mine water control. DRAINAGE FORMATIONS: THRESHOLD QUESTIONS * If the precise mechanism of mine water formation were certainly known, steps to prevent or control it would be more surefooted. After years of investigation, including on-site studies in bituminous coal PAGENO="0188" 180 mines, however, scientists are still working on probabilities. The one thing they are sure of is that the mechanism is far more complex than is generally believed. The trouble starts with the oxidation of pyrite in the presence of air and water. Pyrite-chemicaily, iron disulfide-is a mineral commonly found imbedded in coal seams and associated rock strata. When it oxidizes, many reaction products can be formed; however, the primary product is ferrous sulfate which dissolves in water, thereby cleansing the pyrite to expose fresh surface for oxidation. Acid mine drainage probably results from the interplay of all known processes of pyrite decomposition and oxidation-chemical, electro- chemical, and bacterial. Chemical oxidation apparently triggers the acid-formation mechanism, but there are accompanying or subsequent complications. Pyrite conducts electricity and exhibits characteristics in water solutions that suggest an electrochernical reaction, which re- duces pyrite to iron and generate sulfur gas and solubTe forms of sul- fur. Bacterial oxidation has also been inferred from the consistent presence of pyrite-oxidizing bacteria in acid waters in mines, and streams. A BCIR sponsored study at West Virginia University dating back to 1944 led to identification of the probable-and important-role of bacteria in acid mine water formation. The chemical complexity of the oxidation process and of the result- ing alkaline or acid mine drainage discharges are described in a more detailed supplementary statement I shall present for the record. Also described in the supplementary statement are the three major pyrite oxidation theories: chemical oxidation, bacterial oxidation, and electrochernical oxidation. In addition to iron, other major elements show up in mine drainage waters, including calcium, sodium, aluminum, manganese, and mag- nesium. Aluminum and manganese are dissolved from strata in con- tact with acid mine water. Ground water, the commonest vehicle of mine drainage, usually contains calcium and magnesium from the dis- solving of bed limestone, dolomite, and magnesites. Precipitates from mine drainage are the showy parts of the prob- lem-obvious even to the casual observer who has no fix on the acid content of a stream. Mine water containing ferrous iron may remain clear in a low-pH solution, but dilution with alkaline water, aeration and/or bacterial action can set up a chain of reactions converting fer- rous to ferric iron and forming the yellow-to-red precipitates that cause "red water." The notorious "yellowboy"-the yellowish-brown sludge seen in un- derground mines and on streambeds-results from the oxidation of ferrous to ferric compounds that are insoluble in increasingly alkaline waters. The composition of the precipitate is as varied as the source material-in its idealized form yellowboy is ferric hydroxide. PREVENTION PREFERRED: BUT NOT PROBLEM FREE The task of controlling and preventing stream pollution from mine discharges can best be described as one involving a host of variable conditions of nature, each of which must be more fully understood. The demonstration projects that would be authorized in the bill be- PAGENO="0189" 181 fore this committee would help all concerned achieved, with Federal assistance, the greater understanding that is vital to solution of the overall problem. If we were talking about almost any other type of industrial activity, we could suggest relocation to more favorable working areas of the country. Coal mining operations, however, must be carried on where coal is found, and under the environmental conditions prevailing in and around each mine. And, the technology of mine drainage control and prevention, as it is developed, must match each of the assortment of existin.g conditions we find throughout the coal regions of the Na- tion. NO SINGLE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM IS POSSIBLE Abandoned mines give a curt answer to those who think the simple way to stop mine drainage is to stop mining. Acid mine drainage is largely a postdated problem. Some authorities estimate that 3.5 mil- lion tons of acid equivalent is discharged annually from coal mines, and of that up to 90 percent originates in abandoned mines. That con- dition is a byproduct of industrial booming that put a priority on an adequate supply of energy fuel. Stream conservation is an exercise in national hindsight. The opportunity for timely prevention or con- trol of acid mine drainage, therefore, has been lost at many aban- doned mines, leaving only the costly and technically formidable alter- native of discharge treatment. Current coal operators cannot be blamed for that historical mistake. They are diligently searching for ways to make sure they do not repeat~ it. Sealing abandoned mines has produced mixed results. Mines below the natural drainage level have been allowed to flood completely, thus sealing off oxygen from acid-forming materials. Flooding an aban- doned mine, however, can threaten flooding of adjacent active mines in many cases. Mining regulations then call for pumping the water out of the abandoned mine. Continuous pumping of the drainage may sometimes reduce the acid load-it would avoid the discharge of big "slugs" of acid water to receiving streams and give natural neutraliza- tion time to work-but it raises economic and legal questions. Many abandoned workings are orphan mines or public charges. Water sealing, of course, will not work at mines above drainage. For them the theory that has intrigued researchers for years is air sealing. Isolated successes for air sealing have been reported since the 1930's by researchers for the U.S. Bureau of Mines, West Virginia TJniversit~y and the U.S. Public Health Service, Pennsylvania's Department of Mines and Mineral Industries constructed almost 1,000 mine seals in the late 1940's, and the coal industry-through the Coal Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio River Valley Water Conservation Commission-sponsored a mine sealing project at Kittanning, Pa., with the Bureau of Mines. Knowledge of the permanent effects of mine sealing are still sketchy, however, and not all authorities agree it is the answer sought. As late as 1962, for example, Dr. S. A. Braley, work- ing under a Mellon Institute fellowship supported by Pennsylvania, BCR, the National Coal Association, and other coal groups, reported that mine sealing was apparently not effective in reducin.g acid dis- charges from drift mines. PAGENO="0190" 182 We hope the acid mine drainage pollution control demonstration projects now being contemplated under S. 2760 will give us a better insight than we have had up to now. Active mines are the minor source of acid mine drainage because responsible coal operators spend millions of dollars annually on drain- age control measures, including planned mining, land reclamation, and discharge management. This is in addition to discharge tre~ttment efforts, which are still needed because complete control is an ideal. A single mine may have to handle a daily discharge running to millions of gallons, with the volume depending on both controllable factors- such as the methods and scope of mining-and such uncontrollables as rainfall, the permeability of the overburden, and the geology and hydrology of the area. The coal industry favors preventive measures because it cannot commit itself entirely to drainage treatment for economic reasons, apart from the technical gaps in the state-of-the-treatment art. The composition and flow of mine waters are so variable from area to area that every discharge may require custom treatment. The true economic yardstick of mine drainage treatment is not the cost per thousand gallons of mine water treated but the cost added to each ton of coal produced. That added cost could be excessively bur- densome in many cases. For example, two mines might be required to treat the same volume of similar quality water-say 1,000 gallons per minute-yet one might produce 5,000 tons of coal daily and the other only 1,000 tons. Spreading the fixed cost of water treatment over the smaller production would mean a serious competitive dis- advantage. Water is cleared from most underground mines by pumping it from a sump through a borehole to the surface. Intermittent pumping can result in a "slugging" the stream system with mine drainage. The Coal Industry Advisory Committee to Orsanco has set up mining practice guides that call for equalizing the flow of mine water dis- charges to streams by lagooning or other form of storage. The CIAC practices also include all practical diversion of surface and ground water to prevent its entry into mining areas or at least reduce its flow through workings; handling water that does get in by suitable chan- neling, or, preferably, piping, with adequate pumping for quick removal; and effective handling and disposal of refuse from coal mining and processing to minimize acid drainage from gob piles to streams. The CIAC to Orsanco publication "Principles and Guide to Practice in the Control of Acid Mine Drainage" is attached as a sup- plement to this statement. There are possibilities for mine drainage control by operational planning that have not yet been completely evaluated technically or economically. Mine layout, for example, to minimize water inflow or channel the water for quickest removal; partial coal extraction to avoid caving to water-bearing strata; and avoidance of excessive coal fracturing during mining. Fringe thinking on the acid mine water problem has extended to the use of antioxidant chemicals in ground water to coat-and thus inhibit reaction by-acid-forming materials. Wide application of this idea would have to be preceded by more basic research in both chemistry and hydrology. PAGENO="0191" 183 Strip-mine drainage has been substantially controlled by effective land reclamation, which aims at a reduction of acid formation and~ prevention of soil erosion as prior steps to revegetation and restora- tion of land to productive use. The research lesson here is that the mechanics of reclamation must be mated with conditions at each strip- mined area. Instead of draining the mined-out area, for example, it may be better to impound water in the final cut, which will not only inundate acid-forming materials but also provide a usable lake. Re- searchers from Kent State University and the University of Missouri have concluded independently that initially acid ponds often improve enough in time to support fishlife. Spoil banks from strip mining can have a positive role in water storage, according to a University of Indiana researcher. He ob-- served the spoil material produces significant amounts of flow during severe drought periods, compared with little or no flow from undis- turbed areas. Also, because an appreciable amount of rainwater is re- tained in spoil banks and mining cuts, they help to minimize flood flows within the watershed, he noted. Dr. P. H. Struthers of the Office of Appalachian Studies has pointed out that attempts to reclaim mined land have frequently aggravated' the erosion problem. "Especially troublesome has been the belief that to reduce acid seepage from strip mines, rainwater should run off rather than soak in. Only now are we beginning to recognize this is not so, and that infiltration on mined land should be encouraged," Dr. Struthers concludes. Gob piles or coal refuse dumps contain acid-forming materials, and' acid may be leached out by surface runoff or flooding. Since this is a manmade problem-unlike true mine drainage-it usually yields to such controls as proper construction of the pile; placement of the pile to eliminate water flow through it; compacting the pile and using soil- cover to divert surface water and avoid erosion. TREATMENT PROCESSES . . . NOT HERE BUT EVOLVING A number of mine drainage treatment methods have been evaluated experimentally, but no universal solution has been found as yet. Most experimental work reported in the literature has involved large-scale exploratory neutralization research in which a particular mine water was treated with a particular reagent. There has been little systematic research to resolve differences in results even with the same reagent., Frequently results are reported with little attention to the chemistry of the treatment system, and only meager information is available on~ the effects of mine water composition, chemical equilibria, tempera- ture, oxidation potential and treatability by a specific process. An important phase of BCR's research is to develop constants for the best combination of chemical techniques to treat particular mine waters. The practical drive is to give coal company engineers a firm. guide to the kind of treatment plant they need to set up. Lime neutralization of acid mine water has a relatively long history. Lime has a high basicity-reacts readily with acid to form salts-is generally available and, although expensive, costs less than all other bases except limestone and waste material. Researchers have tried lime-in both the hydrated and calcined-quicklirne----fornis-to PAGENO="0192" 184 neutralize acid wastes from a range of sources, from coal and lignite mining to steel pickling operations. Major drawbacks in the treatment process have appeared, including the cost of the reagent-about $15 to $19 a ton, depending on the lime form-and the production of a voluminous sludge that is hard to dewater and dispose of. The sludge is a waste problem, pending discovery of a practical way to squeeze byproducts from it. The most complete engineering data on lime neutralization of acid mine drainage has emerged in the past few years fro1n "Operation Yellowboy"-a portable treatment plant program developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries. Studies covered a number of locations in Pennsylvania and have confirmed the applicability of lime treatment to at least one mine acid effluent, at a cost of $1.09 per 1,000 U.S. gallons. Pennsylvania's efforts in acid mine drainage treatment bend to lime neutralization. Current in-state treatment plants include those oper- ated by Bethlehem Steel Corp. and Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Bethlehem built its lime-treatment process into a new coal preparation plant at its Marianna mine. Jones & Laughlin treats water from its Vesta No. 5 mine with lime before discharging it to the stream system. Pointing up the complexity of the acid water problem and the need for multiple, customer solutions is the Barnes & Tucker Co., which is investigating lime neutralization and four other approaches at five different coal mines. Limestone neutralization has been studied by BCR and others in- chiding Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Great Britain's National Coal Board. Limestones and dolomites are naturally occurring carbonate rocks, commonly available at coal mining sites and less costly to use than lime. Also, limestone neutral- ization of mine drainage produces a denser precipitate-not yet identified-than lime treatment, with a rapid settling time. Limestone, on the other hand, has the reputation of reacting slowly with ferrous iron. BCR, which has intensively investigated the reactivity of limestones and dolomites-for removal of sulfur dioxide from plant stack gases as well as in mine water treatment-believes the reactivity of the ma- terials has been underestimated. It is currently studying the variables in this form of chemical treatment, including the most significant- limestone composition and the degree of agitation of limestone particles during reaction. Agitation is important to keep reaction products from coating the limestone surfaces and thus reducing reactivity. The Bureau of Mines recently demonstrated a laboratory scale * technique "using a small cement mixer as a simple reactor to provide abrasive agitation of limestone and mine water." The Bureau cau- tioned, however, that it must still define process variables before the development can be considered complete. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. is operating the only full-scale application of limestone neutralization-and that is experimental and still to be evaluated. R&P is using a rotating-drum reactor followed by ~a settling basin to treat 200,000 gallons daily of mine water containing 50 parts per million ferric iron. PAGENO="0193" 185 BCR evaluates a combined limestone-lime process as encouraging. It sees an advantage in that the bulk of the reactions would be between limestone and various acidic groups. Ferrous iron would be precipi- tated, but the combined effects of limestone and lime may require only small lime doses. The precipitated ferrous iron would oxidize rapidly, and the resulting acidity would be neutralized by excess limestone already in the system. To complete its study, BCR will do further research on such process factors as mine water composition, its iEh- standard oxidation-reduction potential-and pH, quantity of reagents needed, and agitation and aeration rates. Potassium permanganate has been evaluated experimentally by Barnes & Tucker Co. for treatment of the more than 14 million g~llons per day discharged from one of its mines. The iron content of the water averages 20 parts per minute. The permanganate is being evaluated as a chemical oxidant for ferrous iron. Sodium hydroxide-and ammonium hydroxide-have been applied to mine drainage in isolated cases but are unlikely to reach wide use. Both react with mine water constituents in basically the same way as hydrated lime but are more expensive-$60 per ton for sodium hy- droxide and $92 per ton for ammonium hydroxide-and not without problems. Sodium hydroxide is a much stronger base than lime and has the advantage of being fed as a liquid rather than a slurry. It also produces a soft water, compared with lime neutralization, but that is a relative merit depending on the end-use of the treated water. A mid- west coal producer tested sodium hydroxide neutralization to reclaim impounded strip-mine water for use in a coal preparation plant but abandoned it because of a bad side effect on froth formation in flota- tion equipment. Ammonium hydroxide is a potential hazard to fish. The only full-scale treatment plant using the chemical-as anhydrous ammonia-operates on a closed-loop cycle. Sodium sulfide as a reagent for treating mine water is being in- vestigated to BCR under a grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission. The reaction is instantaneous and produces an easily filtrable material, iron sulfide. Also, the acid in the mine water is simultaneously neutralized. Further, it may be possible to recover sul- fur from the iron sulfide. The recovered sulfur could be used to put the treatment on a reagent-recycling basis. The possibility of making it yield usable byproducts is worth evaluation. In another step to im- prove the economics of the treatment, BCR is looking into the feasi- bility of using sulfur-bearing wastes, such as coal mine gob piles, to provide low-cost sodium sulfide. Ozone, a powerful oxidizing agent, is being tested for mine drain- age treatment by a Wilkes College researcher. Like potassium per- manganate, ozone's pii~incipal function is to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric, so it must be used in conjunction with a suitable agent to neutralize acid. Initial research indicates a high ozone demand, but costs and other data are not yet available. Bacterial oxidation of iron in mine drainage waters, which has been studied on a small scale by a number of researchers, will get an inten- sive evalution in a new project for which Continental Oil Co. and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will share costs. Conoco scientists will make laboratory studies of type of iron-oxidiz- ing bacteria that will grow in mine damage waters and remove iron 94-376 O-68--13 PAGENO="0194" 186 by incorporating it in the microbial cell or the slime mass around the cell. They will also screen likely sulfate-reducing bacteria that will produce hydrogen sulfide to react with iron in the mine water and precipitate iron sulfide. Consolidation Coal Co., a Conoco sub- sidiary, will field-test the bacterial process at mine drainage lagoons in West Virginia. Instead of using bacteria for mine water reactions, MSA Research Corp. has investigated the possibility of attacking bacteria that may contribute to the formation of acid in the first place. Bacteriophages- bacteria-specific viruses that dissolve growing bacteria-appear to inhibit bacterial oxidation of pyrite but incompletely. Continuing MSA research aims at developing greater virulence in phages. Demineralization processes-familiar from~ work on converting saline to potable water-have been experimentally evaluated for mine water treatment. Westinghouse Electric Corp. has looked at flash distil- lation, and General Dynamics Corp. has evaluated a reverse osmosis process. In both cases, brackish (intermediate between salt and fresh) water was tested. SLUDGE DISPOSAL. . . AFT END OF THE PROBLEM There is still a tough problem down the road after mine drainage treatment of any kind-handling and disposing of the estimated 100 million tons of sludges that could be produced annually in mine drainage neutralization. The disposal problem so far is an operating debit at best, and sometimes a physical burden. No disposal method for the brines produced by demineralization processes is at hand. Handling the sludge from already common lime neutralization processes is a major operation, comparable to handling sanitary sew- age and industrial waste effluents. The precipitated material may retain up to 98 percent water. Where settling basins or lagoons are used for dewatering, subsurface drains must be provided and the basins taken out of service periodically for removal of concentrated sludge by dredging, draglining, or bulldozing-or pumping. The solids may be buried without danger of redissolving into underground water, but often suitable landfill area is not readily available. A process that could reclaim useful products from mine drainae sludge would go far toward easing the economic burden. BCR is in- vestigating the byproduct possibilities, including a substitute material for the limestone used to rockdust underground coal mines. The review and evaluation of mine drainage research that is being conducted through the joint CIAC-BCR program has revealed many critical subject areas in which more knowledge is needed. lATe need to know more about the formation of mine water if we are to prevent acid drainage pollution with any consistent measure of effectiveness. We need to know more about the character of mine water if we are to estab- lish parameters for design of treatment processes. We need to know more about the conditions under which mine sealing will be effective. And we need to know how we are to dispose of, or possibly put to beneficial use, the millions of tons of sludge generated by acid water neutralization processes. PAGENO="0195" 187 *The prospects for a research breakthrough in mine drainage control will be explored by experts at the Second Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage Research May 14 to 15 at Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh. This symposium has been arranged by members of the Coal Industry Advisory Committee to ORSANCO in cooperation with: Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. (an affiliate of the National Coal Association) the Coal Research Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; the Land, Air, and Water Use Study Committee of the American Mining Congress; and, the National Coal Association. Papers will be presented before symposium sessions covering the chemistry of mine-water formation, the relationship of biology to mine drainage, hydrological influences, research and pollution abatement programs, control and treatment techniques, and their application by industry by some of the Nation's leading scientists, researchers, and representatives of Government and industry who are concerned with the effects and practical control of acid mine drainage. In short, final and effective solutions to the problems of mine drain- age control and prevention will come out of the combined efforts of many individuals representing a broad spectrum of scientific and tech- nological disciplines-chemistry and geoc.hemistry, geology and hy- drology, biology and bacteriology, and mining engineering and sani- tary engineering. We recognize that there is a scarcity of talented people in these and other disciplines, and that perhaps the task of solving acid mine drain- age problems is not a glamorous one which would attract the people we need. The coal industry is ready to cooperate in every way it can in implementing a successful mine drainage control research and de- monstration program. We urge the establishment by the Federal Government of a statutory technical advisory committee composed of representatives of the coal and other mining industries and academic experts well versed in the mine drainage field. This committee would concern itself with the fundamental, down-to-earth technical problems involved in develop- ing technically feasible and economically attainable means of prevent- ing and controlling acid mine drainage and the subsequent pollution of the Nation's rivers and streams. Policy decisions would be left to the agency charged with administration of the demonstration projects called for in S. 2760, but the agency would have the benefit of advice from those experts who are most closely associated with the basic problem. We appreciate the opportunity afforded us today to present our views on 5. 2760, and to offer a report on the state-of-the-art of mine drainage control. We support section 2 of S. 2760 because of the urgent need for the body of technical knowledge which will come out of the acid mine drainage research program this part of the bill proposes. The coal industry is in full accord with all those who strive to make our rivers and streams as free of pollution as is practicable. We are pre- pared to demonstrate our desire in this respect by working to attain the goals underlying the program set forth in this bill. PAGENO="0196" 188 I would like to submit for the record at this point in my testimony the following two supplements. These are: Appendix A. "Principles and Guide to Practices in the Control of Acid Mine-Drainage," compiled by the Coal Industry Advisory Com- mittee to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. This document contains Orsanco resolution 5-60. Appendix B. "Status of Mine Drainage Technology," by E. A. Zaw- adzki, of Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., prepared as a supplement to my testimony. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, so ordered. (Apps. A and B follow:) PAGENO="0197" Principles and Guide to Practices in the Control of Acid Mine~IJrainage supplemented by Case Histories Attachment A to Testimony of James F. Boyer, Jr. before Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives Compiled by COAL INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION (189) PAGENO="0198" 190 OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION An interstate agency representing Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ILLINOIS Maurice E. Gosnell Attorney at Lasv Clarence \V. Kiassen Chief Sanitary Engineer NEW YORK Lyle WI. Hornbeck Bond, Schoeneck & King Hollis S. Ingraham, M. D. Commissioner of Health VIRGINIA E. Blackburn Moore State \Vater Control Board Wm. H. Singleton State Water Control Board F. D. Yoder, M. D. Director of Public Health Joseph R. Shaw Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. Ross H. \Valker State \Vater Control Board INDIANA A. C. Offutt, M. D. State Health Consississioner OHIO E. WI. Arnold, M. D. Director of Health WEST VIRGINIA N. H. Dyer, ~L D. State Health Commissioner B. A. Poole Stream Pollution Control Board Joseph L. Quinn, Jr. The Hulman Company Hudson Biery Retired Barton Roll Logan Clay Products Co. WI. WI. Jennings State \Vater Commission Bern Wright Division of Water Resources KENTUCKY Minor Clark Dept. of Fisls & Wildlife Resources PENNSYLVANIA Karl M. Mason Department of Health U. S. GOVERNMENT Edssin E. Abbott Corps of Engineers J. 0. Matlick Consnsissioner of Conservation Russell E. Teague, M. D. State Health Comnsissioner M. K. McKay Sanitary Water Board C. L. \Vilbar, Jr., M. D. Secretary of Health Raymond E. Johnson Fish & Wildlife Service Luther L. Terry, M. D. Public Health Service OFFICERS Joseph R. Shaw, Chairman Barton Holl, Vice-Chairman Fred H. \Varing, Secretary Verna B. Ballnsau, Treasurer Leonard A. \Veakley, General Counsel Edssard J. Cleary, Executive Director STAFF Edward J. Cleary, Executive Director.Chief Engineer Robert K. Horton, Assistant Director \Villiam L. Klein, Chemist.Biologist Robert J. Boes, Chemical Engineer Thomas R. Crabtree, Public Affairs Representative David A. Dunsmore, Assistant Engineer HEADQUARTERS: 414 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 PAGENO="0199" 191 PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES AND CASE HISTORIES IN THE CONTROL OF ACID MINE-DRAINAGE Compiled by the COAL INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Larry Cook, Chairman Ohio Reclamation Association Joseph J. Ardigo Operators Association of Vvllliamson Field Louis F. Birkel Republic Steel Corporation Fred B. Bullard Kentucky Coal Association Harry C. Campbell Big Sandy-Elkhorn Coal Operators Association John M Crowl Kentucky Reclamation Association James A. Deane Peabody Coal Company Sheldon J. Dicks Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company Bruce E. Duke Bethlehem Mines Corporation R. H. Ferguson Republic Steel Corporation \Mlliam Foster U. S. Steel Corporation J. N. Geyer Imperial Coal Corporation Dr. R. A. Glenn Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. Ernst P. Hall Consolidation Coal Company James Hyslop Consolidation Coal Company R. L. Ireland Consolidation Coal Company Truman E. Johnson Northern West Virginia Coal Operators Association H. E. Jones, Jr Amherst Coal Company Dr. W H. Jukkola Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation Stephen Krickovic Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates R. T. Laing Central Pennsylvania Coal Operators Association Franklin H. Mohney Independent Mineral Producers Association Frank M Morris Clinchfield Coal Company Quin Morton, III Kanawha Coal Operators Association Joseph M Richards Blue Diamond Coal Company L. E. Sawyer Mid-West Coal Producers Institute, Inc. Walter F. Schulten Consolidation Coal Company G. Don Sullivan National Coal Association Harry A. Sutter Western Pennsylvania Coal Operators Association R. H. Swallow Ayrshire Collieries Corporation Cecil H. Underwood Island Creek Coal Company L. S. Weber Mid-West Coal Producers Institute, Inc. of the OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION March, 1964 PAGENO="0200" 192 ~QREWO~ The Coal Industry Advisory Committee was established in 1951 to advise and assist the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission in its regional crusade for the abatement and prevention of pollution from coal mining opera- tions. The Committee consists of representatives from commercial and captive coal producers and coal-industry associations. Pollution-control measures for acid mine-drainage were established by the Commission on January 14, 1960, by adoption of Resolution No. 5-60. The resolution was subsequently amended in January 1963 to include a provision regarding the handling of acid-producing materials encountered in the over- burden in stripping operations. This manual was prepared by the Coal Industry Advisory Committee for the use of coal operators and officials of pollution-control agencies. It provides a review of the fundamental principles involved in the formation of acid mine- drainage together with a guide to control practices that will aid in ameliorating the effects of mine drainage on the streams and rivers of the Ohio Valley. At a meeting on September 12, 1963, the Commission accepted the manual for publication, and expressed appreciation to the Coal Industry Advisory Com- mittee for its work in compiling the manual and for its aggressive efforts in implementing the provisions of Resolution No. 5-60. PAGENO="0201" 193 CONTENTS Principles in the Control of Acid Mine-Drainage 1 Guide to Practices in Acid Mine-Drainage Control 4 Case Histories 7 Appendices: I. Resolution No. 5-60, Acid Mine-Drainage Control Measure II. Resolution No. 14-59, Notification of Spills and Accidental Discharges III. References IV. Regulatory Agencies of the Signatory States PAGENO="0202" PAGENO="0203" 195 PRINCIPLES IN THE CONTROL OF ACID MINE-DRAINAGE Research and study into the causes of acid mine- drainage, of preventing it, and of ameliorating its pollutional effects, have been going on for a number of years. Many individuals, agencies and institu- tions, in addition to the mining industry, have given much time to this problem. As yet there is no pos- itive or complete solution known, but means have been found for helping the situation in many in- stances, and research and study are continuing. In the meantime, certain fundamental principles which can be applied in the control of acid mine- drainage from coal mining and related operations have been recognized. These principles form the basis for the control measures contained in ORSANCO Resolution 5-60. A copy of ORSANCO Resolution 5-60 is included with these Principles. It was adopted after years of study and extensive deliberations by the ORSANCO Engineering Committee and the Coal Industry Ad- visory Committee. It has been approved by both the Commission and the industry. The coal industry in the Ohio River watershed is now required to carry out the provisions of Resolution 5-60. A study of the principles upon which the control measures contained in ORSANCO Resolution 5-60 are based will not only help to understand those measures, but will also help in carrying them out. THE PROBLEM Coal mining is one of the great industries of this country, but even before a single ton of coal was mined, water pollution from "coal drainage" was noted by early explorers. They documented ii in their records, predicting the presence of ample quantities of coal by streams that were" so impregnated with bituminous and sulphurous materials as to be frequently nauseous to the taste (The First Century and a Quarter of the American Coal Industry, Howard N. Evansen, Waverly Press, Baltimore (1942), Pg. 169). Acid drainage is a natural occurrence which has been greatly increased by the mining process. Just as certain materials associated with the outcrop coal measures came in contact with other natural elements to cause pollution before mining, so do they come in contact with these elements in the mining process, and in far greater quantity. The elements which cause water pollution when associated with certain materials in the coal measures are two of the most common and essential in nature - air and water. If we could completely eliminate either air or water from coal mining operations there would be no acid mine-drainage. This has so far proven to be imprac- tical of accomplishment by either physical or chemical means. Some control can be exercised over these elements, however, and another factor involved in the development of acid mine-drainage provides an opportunity for this control. That factor is time. The production of acid is not an instantaneous process. The rapidity of its formation varies with different acid-producing materials, but the amount of acid contributed by a given material is related to the length of time that material is exposed to air and water;, however, complete submergence under water will prevent exposure to air, thereby eliminating acid production. THE FUNCTIONS OF AIR, WATER AND TIME IN PRODUCING ACID MINE-DRAINAGE Oxidation of the acid-producing materials associ- ated with coal mining is accessory for the formation of mine acids. Oxygen is a part of the chemical com- position of these acids which is lacking until the material is exposed. There can be no acid, there- fore, until exposure of the acid-producing materials to air. Oxidation begins on the exposed surface of the materials, and proceeds according to the rapidity with which it can break down the other elements. Water, in the form of moisture in the atmosphere, hastens the process. As oxidation continues, acid is formed, and the parent materials are disintegrated to expose new surfaces to oxidation and further acid formation. Thus time becomes an important factor in the amount of acid formed. The longer the acid- producing materials are exposed to the atmosphere, the greater the amount of acid which will be formed. PAGENO="0204" Water invades almost every mine in the form of rain or snow, surface run-off or underground perco- lation. Sooner or later it passes through the mine or over or through mined material, becomes mine- drainage, and eventually mingles with other outside waters. Its quality at any time is the net result of the materials dissolved in it and the reaction of each upon the others. When the water comes in contact with acid material in the mine, it leaches the acid from them. If the acid thus picked up is greater than the ability of the water to neutralize it, the waler will be acid in character. In this manner, water becomes acid mine-drainage. Thus, as woter passes through the mine, or over or through mined mater- jots, and comes in contact with acids, it dissolves them and becomes their transport agent. Generally speoking, the longer water remains in contact with acid materials, the more acid it wilt pick up and transport. "ACID-PRODUCING" IN RELATION TO "ACID-NEUTRALIZING" MATERIALS Not all materials exposed during the miningprocess are acid-producing. Some have acid-neutralizing pro- perties. Both acid-producing and acid-neutralizing materials occur in alt coat measures, although the amount and character of each may vary considerably from mine to mine. All coal measures contain sulfur. It may be organic, sulfate or sulfide sulfur. Only the sulfide sulfur, occur- ring as the mineral "pyrite," forms acid if exposed to oxidation. Thus, alt coal mines have acid-producing potentials, even though alt coal mines do not produce acid mine-drainage. Acid-neutralizing materials, or alkalis, occur in almost all earth strata, even those containing acid- producing materials. These alkalis are also present in all coal measures in varying amounts and are exposed by the mining process. So it canbe concluded that all coal mines have acid-neutralizing potentials. Acid and alkali waters react with and neutralize each other. In the case of mine-drainage, the result of this action depends upon the amount of each present. The character of the drainage from any given mine, therefore, depends upon the amounts of acid and alkali that dissolve in the water as it passes through the mine. Even in so-called acid mines, the exercise of control to decrease the production of acid and increase neutralization by alkali, wilt have a beneficial effect upon the character ofthemine-drainage. 196 MEASUREMENTS AND NEUTRALIZATION OF MINE ACIDS When we see the word "acid," we generally think of a concentrate which will destroy cells and tissue, and we think of an extremely caustic substance when we see the word "alkali." \~,Te often forget that fruits, vinegar and carbonated beverages are acids, and that baking soda, limestone and household ammonia are alkalis. Most matter is either acid or alkaline. Some acid or some alkali does not necessarily mean an unnatural or undesirable condition. Therefore, control of acid mine.drainage need not require the attainment of completely neutral conditions in all cases. Acids and alkalis are opposites which are defined in terms of their ability to act with and neutralize each other. When they are dissolved in water, the water is either acid, alkaline, or neutral. This char~ acter, or condition, of water can be indicated by a measurement known as "pH," a term devised by the chemist to indicate the concentration of hydrogen ions in solution in water. When the concentrations of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions are equal, the water is neutral, or pH 7. The greater the hydrogen ion concentration, or the more indication of acid, the lower the pH below 7. The greater the hydroxyl ion concentration, or the more indication of alkaline character, the higher thepH above 7. ThepH measure- ment is used to indicate the acid or alkaline character of water, and warn of possible extremes. In efforts to control the acidity of acid mine-drainage, the amount of neutralization needed to change the acid character cannot be measured by pH, since it is only an indication of the degree of acid or alkaline condition. The terms "acidity" or "alkalinity" are used to define quantity, and, in general, an equal quantity of the opposite character would be necessary to attaln a neutral condition. The determination of the amount of neutralization necessary to controtthe acid character of a given mine-drainage is a laboratory procedure. Dilution may offer a means of ameliorating the pollutional effects of acid mine-drainage. It the added water is alkaline, some degree of neutralization can be expected. Dilution alone will not change the total amount of acid, but it will reduce the concentration, which can result in ameliorating its pollutional effects. The principle of utilizing the assimilative capacity of the stream is involved in the recommendationthat acid mine-water be released to streams during periods of high flow. Dilution to ameliorate the pottutionat effects of acid mine-drainage should be practiced whenever feasible. In no case should the principle of neutralization of acid water be substituted foracidpreventionprinciples. PAGENO="0205" THE COMPLEXITY OF ACID MINE-DRAINAGE 197 Acid mine-drainage is not a simple dilute solution of pure acid. As hasbeen pointedout, all of the soluble materials with which it has come in contact have affected its quality. Even the acids it has picked up are not simple solutions. Theyhavebeenformedby the oxidation of pyrite into any one of a series of iron sulphate salts, or from aluminum sulphatesalts, which the water has dissolved and diluted and which may be actçd upon furtherby other materialwhichthe water may contact. Acid mine-drainage is variable and exlremely complex. Whenever possible, prevenlian is preferable 10 treatmenf. While acid mine-drainage is not necessarily harmful when consumed by man or animals, ititoften harmful to fish and other aquatic life. It usually degrades water quality for many uses and must be regarded as a serious source of water pollution. Itis pollutional if it causes a condition in the receiving stream which adversely affects the treatment procedure of a munici- pal water supply, causes excessive expense by other industries, is harmful to fish and other aquatic life, or has deleterious effects upon other users of water. We can conclude, therefore, that EVERY PRACT- ICAL EFFQRT MUST BE MADE TO PREVENT THE PRODUCTION OF ACID MINE-DRAINAGE AND TO AMELIORATE ITS POLLUTIONAL EFFECTS. SUMMARY (1) Acid drainage is a natural occurrence which is generally increased by the mining process. (Ref. 1, 3, 4. See Appendix III). (2) If we could completely eliminate either air or water from coal mining operations there would be no acid mine-drainage(Ref. 7). (3) The amount of acid contributed by a given material is related to the length of time that material is exposed to air and water; however, complete submergence under water will prevent exposure to air, thereby eliminating acid pro- duction. (Ref. 2). (4) Oxidation of the acid-producing materials asso- ciated with coal mining is necessary for the formation of mine acids. (Ref 3, 4, 6, 7, 9). (5) As water passes through the mine, or over or through mined materials, and comes in contact with acids, it dissolves them and becomes their transport agent. Generally speaking, the longer water remains in contact with acid materials, the more acid it will pick up and transport. (Ref. 1). (6) Both acid-producing and acid-neutralizing ma- terials occur in all coal measures, although the amount and character of each may vary con- siderably from mine to mine. All coal mines have acid-producing potentials, even though all coal mines do not produce acid mine- drainage. (Ref. 2, 4, 5). (7) The exercise of contralto decreasethe production of acid and increase neutralization by alkali, will have a beneficial effect upon the character of the mine-drainage. In no case should the principle of neutralization of acid water be sub- stituted for acid preventionprinciples.(Ref.8, 13). (8) Control of acid mine-drainage need not require the attainment of completely neutral conditions in all cases. (9) The pH measurement is used to indicate theacid or alkaline character of water, and warn of possible extremes. (Ref. 10, 11). (10) The determination of the amount of neutraliza- tion necessary to control the acid character of a given mine-drainage is a laboratory proce- dure.(Ref. 10). (11) Dilution to ameliorate the pollutional effects of acid mine-drainage should be practicedwhen- ever feasible. (Ref. 4, 14). (12) Acid mine-drainage is variable and extremely complex. Whenever possible, prevention is pref- erable to treatment. (Ref. 1, 3, 4, 10, 11). PAGENO="0206" 198 GUIDE TO PRACTICES IN ACID MINE-DRAINAGE CONTROL (Some Operating, Planning and Administrative Techniques Relating to the Practical Application of ORSANCO Resolution No. 5-60) The following material is intended to be explana- tory of the five measures contained in Resolution 5-60. This material is presented as a guide to operators and an aid to administrative agencies in applying the provisions of Resolution 5-60. This material is not necessarily complete, nor is it intended to limit the application of Resolution 5-60. It is believed, however, that it covers most of the known practical techniques in acid mine-drainage control. As progress is made in the application of such control techniques, revision and expansion~ of this material may be re- quired. The application of these techniques has to be fitted to the wide variations in local conditions which characterize coal mining. It is to be noted that attention should be given to over-all planning of mining operations to facilitate application of good dralnage practices. CONTROL MEASURE 1(a) "Surface waters and ground waters shall be diverted where practicable to prevent the entry or reduce the flow of water into and through workings." The application of this measure obviously requires that in every mine an effortmustbe made to determine the source of all mine drainage. Inunderground mines such water may come from water-bearing strata over- lying or underlying the coal, from cracks to the sur- face, from adjoining mines or mine workings, or from shaft, drift or slope openings. Where the source of mine drainagecanbe determined, every practicable effort should be made to shut off the water source. In some cases cracks to the surface can be plugged by filling the cracks with earth. In some cases it may be practical to seal such cracks by grouting methods. Where surface water is being admitted by shaft, slope, drift, or other mine openings, water should be diverted around such openings, or other measures taken to prevent the flowintothe mine. In strip mining the same principles should be applied. Control Measure "1(a)" would require that wherever practicable, diversion ditches be maintained above the highwall to minimize run-oifwaterfromenteringthe pit. In an area where mining operations encounter other mine workings, or mine pits, precautions should be taken to prevent entry of waler from such encountered mine workings or mine pits into or through such mining operations. Measures should also be taken to control the discharge of such water into the drainage system affected in accordance with Control Measure III of Resolution 5-60. CONTROL MEASURE 1(b) "Watzr that does gain entry to the workings shall be handled in a manner which will min- imize the formalion and discharge of acid mine- drainage to streams." This provision requires that mine drainage be con- trolled within the mine to minimize the distribution or flow through or over acid-producing materials. To accomplish this, mine drainage should be removed as quickly as possible from acid-forming materials, or accumulated in sumps or other storage facilities for removal, as near as practicable to the point of entry into the mine. Local depressions in the floor which permit the accumulated water to spread out over a relatively large area are not suitable sumps. Wherever practicable mine water should be conducted in pipes rather than ditches, unless such ditches can be kept free from acid-producing materials. Where such water cannot be handled in pipes, or suitable ditches, by gravity flow, local pumping stations or suctionpick-up stations should be employed. These techniques can be applied to both underground and strip mines. In both underground and strip mines, good housekeeping practices should be followed with respect to accumula- tions of crushedcoal or other acid-producingmaterials. Acid is formed onexposedsurfaces and acid-producing debris is capable of producing large quantities of acid. Where flowing or standing mine water is permitted to contact such debris, it may become contaminated 4 PAGENO="0207" 199 with a relatively large quantity of acid. It should be remembered that such good housekeeping practices are also important from the standpoint of mine safety. CONTROL MEASURE ii Refuse from the mining and processing of coal shall be handled and disposed of in a manner which will minimize discharge of acid mine-drainage therefrom to streams. Where acid-producing materials are encountered inthe over-burden in stripping operations, thesemat- erials shall be handled so as to prevent or minimize the productionof acid mine-drainage, taking into consideration the need for stream pollution prevention and all economic factors involved." A refuse pile shall mean any deposit of any waste coal, rock, shale, calm, honey, slate, clay and related materials, associated with or near a coal seam, which are either brought above groundor otherwiseremoved from the mine in the process of mining coal, or which are separated fromcoalduringthecleaning or prepara- tion operations, provided, however, that a refuse pile shall not mean overburden from strip mining opera- tions or rock from mine shafts and mine tunnels. In order to reduce acid formation in refuse piles and to reduce inifitration of water into the pile, refuse should be compacted. Where the "size consist" of the refuse is such as to prevent effective compaction, a suitable size consist should be obtained by crushing or other suitable means as necessary. The run-off from the area surrounding the refuse piles should not be permitted to infiltrate the piles. If such run-off must pass through the piles it should be contained in a suitable conduit. Run-off water from the area surrounding refuse piles should be diverted around the piles by suitable ditches or conduits. Probably the most effective protection against the formation of acid by refuse piles is permanent sub- mergence under water. Refuse piles may be made in strip pits or other depressions and covered by suitable non-acid pro- ducing material. Refuse should not be used for road surfacing or other filling operations where it will produce acid drainage. In the process of surface mining the practice of selective placement of materials is followed whenever practical, for the purpose of stabilizing the banks. The practice should also include the placement of acid-producing materials, when possible, where such materials will not be exposed even when the surface of the bank is graded. Pit cleanings and waste coal materials should be placed where they will not become exposed. CONTROL MEASURE III "Discharge of acid mine-drainage to streams shall be regulated insofar as practicable to equalize the flow of daily accumulations throughout a 24-hour period." Equalization of the flow of mine drainage may be accomplished in various ways, such as: A. The pumping equipment can be designed or adjusted to suit the flow at any given location. B. The discharge from the mine may be accumu- lated in a lagoon or other suitable reservoir, and released at a controlled rate into the stream. C. In case of accidental or unusual discharge from the mine which may cause pollution, notification should be given tothe propercontrol authorities as provided in ORSANCO Reso- lution No. 14-59, adopted September 30, 1959, amended January 12, 1961. CONTROL MEASURE IV "Upon discontinuance of operations of any mine all practicable mine-closing measures consistent with safety requirements, shall be employed to minimize the formation and discharge of acid mine-drainage." Effective application of this provision wiil require that careful planning of underground mine openings to the surface be carried out so as to avoid, wherever practicable, locations that would render sealing in- effective. The plan of the mine workings, including the openings to the surface, should be recorded on appro- priate mine projection maps, and such maps should be made available to poilution control administrative agencies. PAGENO="0208" 200 It should be recognized that mine sealing by the use of bulkheads is not effective in preventing acid mine-drainage unless the coal seam and other acid- producing strata and materials are submerged. This presents a serious problem in mines, the workings of which lie above the natural drainage elevation. Where practicable, such bulkheads should be de- signed to be water-tight seals and so constructed as to withstand the water and earth pressure which may be imposed upon them Upon the permanent abandonment of strip pits, or the completion of auger mining, all acid-producing refuse should be removed, buried, or submerged, the face of the coal seam in the bottom of the pit should be covered or submerged and proper pro- visions for handling water should be established. CONTROL MEASURE V "Under appropriate circumstances, consid- eration shall be given to the treatment of acid mine-drainage by chemical or other means in order to mitigate its pollutional properties." Under certainconditions, circumstances may develop which are appropriate for the application of chemical or other treatment of acid mine-drainage, as atempor- ary measure. As scientific and practical progress is made on the chemical or other treatment of acid mine water, such developments should be considered for application. PAGENO="0209" 201 CASE HISTORIES IN THE CONTROL OF ACID MINE-DRAINAGE Mining is not an ordinary industry. Its basic difference is that it is continually moving into new conditions. Even the most carefully engineered mine is subject to day by day adjustment to meet these changing situations. Many of the water and water quality problems acquired by the mining industry are also unusual. Since they are largely the result of the conditions encountered, they vary from mine to mine and may also vary from day to day. They are a part of the problems of mining. As such, the operating personnel of any particular mine, if they are competent to do so, are in the best position to determine and apply the most practical procedures for the solution of the problems. The control measures embodied in ORSANCO Re- solution 5-60 recognize these factors. The degree to which they are given consideration by those charged with the administration and enforcement of the mea- sures will undoubtedly depend uponthe initiativetaken by each individual mine or mining company in consci- entiously applying them in theirday today operations. The Principles and Guide to Practices contained in this publication are general intheir application. Specific procedures cannot be recommended for any and all conditions. However, certain procedures which have proven successful in one mine under certainconditions may be applicable to another mine under similar conditions, be adaptable to other conditions or serve to create an idea which would lead to an applicable procedure. For this reason a section on Case Histories has been included. It is intended that additional Case Histories will be prepared from time to time and added to the manual in accordance with the following outline: Control Measure I (a) Determination of the source of mine water from: la-i Water-bearing strata overlying the coal 2 Water-bearing strata underlying the coal 3 Cracks to the surface 4 Adjoining mines and mine workings 5 Shaft, drift or slope openings Efforts made to control water inflow by: 6 Fifing surface cracks with earth 7 Grouting methods 8 Diverting surface water around openings 9 Sealing openings 10 Maintaining diversion ditches above high wall ii Diverting stream water flows from surface mining operations Control Measure I (b) - (Accumulation and re- removal of mine drainage) lb-i Acceptable underground water drainage 2 Unacceptable underground water drainage 3 Other underground water storage facilities 4 Piping of mine drainage underground 5 Piping of mine drainage in surface mines 6 Underground water drainage ditches free from acid-producing materials 7 Surface water drainage ditches free from acid-producing materials 8 Unsuitable drainage ditches 9 Local pick-up orsuction stations forfeeding central water disposal system 10 Good housekeeping techniques with respect to acid-producing materials, both surface and underground Control Measure II - (Coal refuse disposal) 2-1 Compaction of coal refuse in a refuse pile 2-2 Crushing or other control of coal refuse size consist 2-3 Channeling of run-off water away fromcoal refuse pile 2-4 Piping of water under or through coal refuse pile 2-5 Inundation of coal refuse 2-6 Burial of coal refuse in strip pits and/or other depressions 2-7 Covering and seeding coal refuse pile 2-8 Conditions resulting from improper use of coal refuse for road surfacing Control Measure III - (Mine drainage dis- charge equalization) 3-1 Adjustment of pump size to fit discharge requirements 3-2 Adjustment of pump discharge to fit dis- charge requirements 3-3 Controlled release fromlagoonorreservoir 94-376 O-68-----14 PAGENO="0210" Control Measure IV - (Mine closing measures) 4-1 Mine working plans 4-2 Mine sealing which inundates the coal seam and other acid-producing strata 4-3 Watertight seals 4-4 Removal, burial or submergence of acid- producing refuse in strip or auger opera- tions 202 4-5 Covering of coal faces in surface mining 4-6 Submergence of coalfaces insurface mining Control Measure V - (Chemical treatment of acid mine-drainage) 5-1 Emergency circumstances requiring chem- ical treatment for protection of downstream water quality 5-2 Emergency circumstances requiring chem- ical treatment within mining operation 8 PAGENO="0211" 203 CASE HISTORY NO. la-i USE OF DYES TO LOCATE SOURCE OF MINE WATER *NOTE: HATCHED AREA SHOWS WHERE EXCESSIVE WATER SEEPAGE OCCURRED. SEE FRONT VIEWDIAGRAM FOR DETAILS ON CHEMICAL GROUTING. Figure 1. Side View-Entry Slope ,yc~ouc~L:wr~~ L__~- _~. L [EEl EE~J Figure 2. Front View- 15(1 Feet Down Entry Slope (Vertical Depth - 50 Feet) MINING METHOD: Underground mining. LOCATION: Western Pennsylvania, Upper Freeport Seam. RESULTS ACHIEVED: Location of underground aquifer severed by slope into mine established so that leakage into mine could be prevented and eliminated subsequently by chemical grouting. (See case history describing "Chemical Grouting to Prevent Inflow of Water" - Case History No. la-7). DESCRIPTION: Water leakage occurred along the plane of intersection of the mine entry with water-bearing strata. Water containing a fluorescent yellow- green dye (Calcocid Uranine) was pumped into bore holes at selected locations near the suspected source of water leakage. Time lapse between injection of dye into bore hole and appearance of dye in water entering mine was measured and later used to (a) establish exact location of water-bearing strata, and (b) establish gel-times required for subsequent sealing off the water leakage by chemical grouting. PAGENO="0212" 204 CASE HISTORY NO. la.7 CHEMICAL GROUTING TO PREVENT INFLOW OF WATER ~ LT~NE . - °NOTE: HATCHED AREA SHOOR WHERE EXCESSIVE W.1TEI? SEEP-lOg 0CC URRED. SEE FRONT VIEWDIAGRAM FOR DETAILS ON CHEMICAL GROUTING. Figure 1. Side View-Entry Slope MINING METHOD: Underground mining. LOCATION: Western Pennsylvania, Upper Freeport Seam. RESULTS ACHIEVED: Inflow of water into mine stopped. This in turn elim- inated severe icing conditions on the walls and ceiling of the mine slope near the entry. This resulted in improved safety conditions and in substantial savings in time and material. The method would be useful to control mine drainage. DESCRIPTION: Water leakage occurred along the plane of intersection of the mine entry with water-bearing strata. Holes were drilled in the roof and ribs of the entry. First, water containing Calcocid Uranine dye, a fluorescent yellow- green color, was pumped into these holes to locate the leakage; then chemical grout was pumped into the holes to seal off the water. (over) Figure 2. Front View-150 Feel Down Entry Slope (Vertical Depth - 50 Feel) 11 PAGENO="0213" 205 No coal seams were encountered in the drilling. The rock types present were typical of strata overlying coal measures and included claystone, fossil shales and fine-grained sandstones. American Cyanamid Company's AM-9 is a dry-powder mixture of two acrylic monomers that is applied as an aqueous solution. When catalyzed a cross- linked polymer is formed that renders soil and rock formations impermeable to water. Because solutions of AM-9 retain the same density and biscosity as water until the point of its instantaneous gelation, they cOuld be pumped into the areas located by the dye in the same time intervals. The gel-time of the grout was set so that the leaky channels would be completely sealed. The use of 220 gallons of 10 percent AM-9 pumped into 15 bore holes was sufficient to eliminate the entry of water into the roof and ribs of the mine. PAGENO="0214" 206 CASE HISTORY NO. la.8 DIVERSION DITCH MAINTAINED ABOVE THE HIGHWALL MINING METHOD: Surface. LOCATION: Western Kentucky Coal Field, Ohio County, Kentucky. Carbondale Formation. Seam No. 9. RESULT ACHIEVED: Surface water prevented from entering active pit to prevent flooding and formation of acid water. DESCRIPTION: Contour diversion ditch dug above highwall around pit. Water diverted to stream. Cost of constructing a 4 ft. deep diversion ditch at this mine was approximately $3,200 per mile. Work done with a tractor-bull- dozer. The terrain was lightly wooded and genfly rolling topography. PAGENO="0215" 207 CASE HISTORY NO. lb-i ACCEPTABLE UNDERGROUND WATER DRARNAGE MINING METHOD: Mechanized underground mining. LOCATION: Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Seam Coal. RESULT ACHIEVED: Water is not allowed to accumulate in working areas, thereby keeping the water from prolonged contact with acid-forming material in the mine. Storage sumps and regulated pumping equalize the mine water discharge over a 24-hour period. DESCRIPTION: Gathering or main sumps are provided in the mine by driving separate sump entries or by digging up the bottom. This practice does not permit water to accumulate in low gob areas where acid-producing surface areas would be exposed to the water. Pipes instead of ditches are provided to conduct the water by gravity to these sumps wherever possible. These large sumps provide detention and prevent surges of mine water from entering a stream. By regulated pumping the discharges are equalized over a 24-hour period. PLAN VIEW SHOWING TYPICAL SUMP ENTRY FOR WATER STORAGE 15 PAGENO="0216" 208 COMPACTION OF COAL REFUSE TO MINIMIZE ACID DRAINAGE CASE HISTORY NO. 2-1 Coal refuse disposal showing coal refuse deposited behind a clay face wall and on lop of a previously deposited layer of coal refuse which has been leveled and lhoroughlv compacled by Ihe direcled lravel of refuse Irucks. MINING METHOD: Underground mining - wet coal preparation. LOCATION: Western Pennsylvania, Freeport Seam Coal. RESULT ACHIEVED: Coal refuse deposited in this location does not produce appreciable acid drainage. Much of the rainfall on the pile flows off over the surface rather than through refuse material. DESCRIPTION: The coal refuse deposited on this pile contains a relatively large amount of acid-producing material, and when deposited in a haphazard fashion can produce appreciable quantities of acid drainage. The refuse is pro- duced in a coal preparation operation and has a top size of about 4 inches with sufficient fine material for good compaction. Additionally, the refuse shows excellent weathering characteristics so that exposure to atmospheric conditions for a few months will soften the refuse and aid compaction. In the construction of this refuse pile a face wall of earth is deposited about 4 feet high at the outer edge of the pile. The back of the pile is sealed against (over) PAGENO="0217" 209 a hillside from which vegetation is cleared before refuse is deposited on it. Refuse is hauled by truck from the preparation plant and deposited in 10-ton piles adjacent to each other so that a layer thickness of 36 inches will be realized when the pile is leveled and compacted. These piles are permitted to weather for a period of 3 to 6 months before they are leveled and initially compacted with a bulldozer. Further compaction of refuse is achieved by directing the travel of loaded trucks carrying clay or refuse over the entire surface. Successive layers are similarly constructed. The upper surface of each layer of the refuse pile is sloped into the hill so that rainfall on the refuse will flow off quickly with a minimum of penetration into the refuse pile and without disturbing the clay seal. Water draining off the refuse pile has been found occasionally to be slightly acid; this, however, is dissipated when it is mixed with a flow of surface water from the hill above the pile so that the flow of water from the property is not acid. PAGENO="0218" 210 CHANNELING RUNOFF WATER AWAY FROM COAL REFUSE PILE MINING METHOD: Underground mining - wet coal preparation. LOCATION: Northern West Virginia, Pittsburgh Seam Coal. CASE HISTORY NO. 2.3 RESULT ACHIEVED: Surface water is diverted around the coal refuse pile rather than flowing over and through it. DESCRIPTION: Coal refuse is deposited in a layer and compacted. A drainage channel is maintained alongside the coal refuse pile so that surface water from the drainage area above the pile is conducted around the pile and into the stream below the refuse pile. By this technique water which would otherwise flow over and through the refuse pile is prevented from contact with the refuse and the acid-producing materials contained therein. Coal refuse disposal showing drainway to carry surface waler around refuse pile. 19 PAGENO="0219" 211 CASE HISTORY NO. 2-7 COVERING AND SEEDING COAL REFUSE PILE MINING METHOD: Surface LOCATION: Western Kentucky Coal Field, Hopkins County, Kentucky. Carbondale Formation, Seams 9, 11 and 12. RESULT ACHIEVED: Acid water runoff from refuse pile to stream minimized. DESCRIPTION: Old refuse pile in valley, compacted and graded on 23.2 acres. Cost of covering 23.2 acres of coal refuse with average of 3 ft. of overburden materials and soil: Cost Breakdown Dirt Moving Establishment of Vegetative Cover Per Acre Total $343.06 $7,959.06 95.73 2.22097 $438.79 $10,180.03 The spoil and soil used for covering the refuse pile were available immediately adjacent to the refuse dump which reduced the costs of earth moving. The covering material was moved with a self-propelled scraper pan and leveled off with a road maintainer. The covering material was native acid soil of sandstone origin and spoil. It was heavily limed with a lime-spreader truck, fertilized and drill-seeded to Balboa rye and Kentucky 31 fescue. Later on in the late winter it was also seeded to Korean lespedeza. Vegetative cover established on covered refuse pile to minimize erosion. 2i PAGENO="0220" 212 CASE HISTORY NO. 3.2 ADJUSTMENT OF PUMP DISCHARGE TO FIT DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Deep Well Pump Installation Drawing Water from Mine Sump 370 Feet Betow MINING METHOD: Mechanized underground mining. LOCATION: Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Seam Coal. RESULT ACHIEVED: Water seeping into the pool contacts less gob and picks up less acid and iron. The pH of the discharge has changed from 6.0 to 6.7 and the iron content from about 200 mg/i to the neighborhood of 50 mg/i. DESCRIPTION: Abandonment of the existing borehole discharges on retreat sections allowed a large pool of water to form and threatened to inundate the main haulage area. Two deep well pumps were installed in a borehole 370 feet deep. At the outset of the operation of these pumps the level of water was at elevation 760 and the area covered was quite large. The iron content of the water was prohibitive and discolored the receiving stream for a distance of ten miles. Several methods of pumping were tried, varying the time and interval of pumping periods. Finally, the pumps were operated continuously and the water level was lowered to elevation 710. This diminished the area covered by water and improved the water quality. The seepage water is of an alkaline nature and since this area is abandoned and has no circulating air currents, the exposed gob area apparently does not oxidize rapidly. Today the stream is discolored for a short distance below the discharge point and from there on the stream is clear and contains an abundance of aquatic life. 23 PAGENO="0221" 213 APPENDIX I ORSANCO RESOLUTION NO. 5-60, ACID MINE-DRAINAGE CONTROL MEASURE (Adopted January 14, 1960, and amended January 10, 1963) WHEREAS: By resolution adopted on the 6th day of April, 1955, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission promulgated a statement of policy and procedures for the control of industrial-waste discharges into waters included within its jurisdiction by the terms and provisions of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact; and WHEREAS: Waters of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation District are being polluted by acid discharges from coal mining and related operations, hereinafter referred to as "acid mine-drainage," contrary to the language and intent of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact; and WHEREAS: It has been demonstrated that the conscientious application of certain principles and practices will, under certain conditions, alleviate the pollution from acid mine-drainage; NOW, THEREFORE: In furtherance of the policy and procedures as above set forth and for the general purpose ofcontributingto the achievement of the ob- jectives specified in Article I of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact; BE IT RESOLVED: That the following measures are hereby adopted by the Commission for the control of acid mine-drainage pollution in the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation District and pursuant to the statement of policy and procedures are to be followed by the signatory states: I. (a) Surface waters and ground waters shall be diverted where practi- cable to prevent the entry or reduce the flow of waters into and through workings. (b) Water that does gain entry to the workings shall be handled in a manner which will minimize the formation and discharge of acid mine-drainage to streams. II. Refuse from the mining and processing of coal shall be handled and disposed of in a manner which will minimize discharge of acid mine- drainage therefrom to streams. Where acid-producing materials are encountered in the overburden in stripping operations, these materials shall be handled so as to prevent or minimize the production of acid mine-drainage, taking into consid- eration the need for stream pollution prevention and all economic factors involved. III. Discharge of acid mine-drainage to streams shall be regulated insofar as practicable to equalize the flow of daily accumulations throughout a 24-hour period. (over) 25 PAGENO="0222" 214 IV. Upon discontinuance of operations of any mine all practicable mine- closing measures, consistent with safety requirements, shall be employed to minimize the formation and discharge of acid mine-drainage. V. Under appropriate circumstances, consideration shall be given to the treatment of acid mine-drainage by chemical or other means in order to mitigate its pollutional properties. Nothing stated in this control measure shall be construed to relieve any municipality, corporation, person or other entity from responsibility for com- pliance with existing federal, state and local laws and regulations. 26 PAGENO="0223" 215 APPENDIX II ORSANCO RESOLUTION NO. 14-59, NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS AND ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES (Adopted September 30, 1959, and amended January 12, 1961) WHEREAS: Spills and other accidental discharges of sewage, industrial wastes and other substances which are contrary to the language and intent of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact and are in violation of the treat- ment standards and other regulations duly promulgated by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission are likely to occur from time to time, notwithstanding efforts to prevent them; and WHEREAS: Such spills and discharges are likely to have such a deleterious effect upon the quality of the waters of the Ohio River Valley Water Sani- tation District as to cause serious damage to or to impose unwarranted burdens upon the users thereof; BE IT RESOLVED: That, in order to minimize the adverse effect which the above-described occurrences may have upon users of waters within its juris- diction, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission does hereby establish the following procedure for the dissemination of information with regard to such occurrences among agencies, municipalities, corporations, persons or other entities which or who may be affected thereby: 1. Each and every municipality, corporation, person or other entity which or who may cause or be responsible for any spill or accidental discharge into any of the waters of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation District of sewage, industrial waste or other substance of such character and in such quantity as to be unsightly or deleterious to the quality of such waters shall give immediate notification thereof by telephone to the water pollution control agency of the state in which such spill or discharge may occur; 2. Such notification shall set forth the time and place of such spill or dis- charge, the type or types and quantity or quantities of the material or materials included therein, action or actions taken to stop such spill or discharge and to minimize the polluting effect thereof, the measure or measures taken or to be taken in order to prevent a recurrence of any such spii or discharge and such additional information as may be re- quested by the state agency; 3. It shall be the responsibility of each industrial establishment or other entity discharging directly to a stream to have available insofar as prac- ticable and reasonable the following information pertaining to those (over) 27 PAGENO="0224" 216 substances that are employed or handled in its operations in sufficiently large amounts as to constitute a hazard in case of an accidental spill and discharge into a public stream: (a) Potential toxicity in water to man, animals and aquatic life, (b) Details on analytical procedures for the quantitative estimation of such substances in water, (c) Suggestions on safeguards or other precautionary measures to null- ify the toxic effects of a substance once it has gotten into a stream; 4. A written verification of such report shall be submitted upon request of the state agency; 5. Whenever any such spill or discharge may affect interstate waters which are within the jurisdiction of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, the state agency receiving the notification to be given as above provided shall promptly relay the information contained therein to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission by telephone in order to permit it to alert downstream state agencies and water users - which are or who may be adversely affected by such spill or discharge; 6. Nothing herein shall relieve any municipality, corporation, person or other entity from responsibility for complying with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact or with treatment standards and other regulations promulgated under author- ity thereof or from responsibility for complying with any federal, regional, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations which may be applicable. 28 PAGENO="0225" 217 APPENDIX III REFERENCES (From the Coal Industry Advisory Committee Library on Mine-Drainage, Bituminous Coal Research, Monroevifie, Pennsylvania) 1. Braley, S. A., Summary Report of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (De- partment of Health) Industrial Fellowship Nos. 1-7, Aug. 1946-Dec. 1953. Mellon Institute Fellowship No. 326 B, Feb. 1954. (Pages 11, 17, 30,69). 2. Braley, S. A., The Oxidation of Pyritic Conglomerates. Mellon Institute Research Project No. 370-6, Nov. 1960. 3. Moulton, E. I., et al., Acid Mine-Drainage Problem in Ohio. Eng. Exp. Sta., Ohio State Univ. Bull. 166. (Pages 5, 13, 37). 4. Brant, R. A., and Moulton, E. I., Acid Mine-Drainage Manual, Eng. Exp. Sta., Ohio State Univ. Bull. 179. (Pages 1, 8, 11, 34). 5. Tracy, L. D., Mine Water Neutralizing Plant at Calurnet Mine, Mining and Metallurgy I, 29-30, 1920. 6. Temple, K. L., and Koehler, W. A., Drainage from Bituminous Coal Mines, W. Va. Univ. Exp. Sta. Research Bull. No. 25 (1954). (Page 9). 7. Braley, S. A., Mine Drainage from Coal Mines, Mining Engineering Vol. III, No. 8, August (1951), AIME Trans. Vol. 190. 8. Braley, S. A., Neutralization of Acid from Bituminous Coal Mines, Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pa., Apr., 1951. 9. Burke, S. P., and Downs, R. Oxidation of Pyritic Sulfur in Coal Mines, AIMME, Tech. Pub. No. 769 (1947) Trans. AIMME, 130, (1938). 10. Braley, S. A., Evaluation of Mine Drainage Water, Mining Eng., Jan. 1957. 11. Selvig, W. A., and Ratcliff, W. C., The Nature of Acid Water from Coal Mines and the Determination of Acidity, J. md. Eng. Chem. 14 (1922). 12. Braley, S. A., Mine Acid Control, ANewApproach, Coal Age, March 1957. 13. Braley, S. A., Strip Mines Show No Stream Pollution, Mining Congress Journal, Sept. 1952. 14. Braley, S. A., An Evaluation of Mine Sealing, Special Report, Mellon Institute, Feb. 1962. 29 94-376 O-68----15 PAGENO="0226" 218 APPENDIX IV REGULATORY AGENCIES OF THE SIGNATORY STATES ILLINOIS Technical Secretary State Sanitary Water Board Springfield, Illinois 62706 INDIANA Technical Secretary Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board 1330 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46207 KENTUCKY Executive Director and Chief Engineer Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission 275 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 NEW YORK Director Bureau of Water Resources Services Division of Environmental Health Services New York State Department of Health 84 Holland Avenue Albany, New York 12208 OHIO Chief Sanitary Engineer Division of Sanitary Engineering Ohio Department of Health Columbus, Ohio 43215 PENNSYLVANIA Sanitary Water Board P. 0. Box 90 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 VIRGINIA Executive Secretary State Water Control Board 415 West Franklin Street Richmond, Virginia 23220 WEST VIRGINIA Executive Secretary State Water Resources Board 1709 Washington Street, East Charleston, West Virginia 25301 30 PAGENO="0227" 219 STATUS OF MINE DRAINAGE TECHNOLOGY by E. A. Zawadzki Attachment B to Testimony of James F. Boyer, Jr. before Committee on Public Works, U~S, House of Representatives April 23, 1968 Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 350 Hochberg Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania PAGENO="0228" 220 STATUS OF MINE DRAINAGE TECHNOLOGY by E. A. Zawadzki The problem of pollution of water by mine water is at least as old as the mining industry itself.(l, 2)* Research on the formation, composition, treatment and abatement of mine water is a relatively recent historical event. The earliest attempts to do something about the problem of mine drainage pollution were, in fact, diagnostic rather than remedial, home remedies rather than application of scientific principles. I. FORMATION ADD CHARACTERISTICS OF NINE DRAINAGE A. Source of Mine Drainage - Acidic Water:-Acid mine drainage results from the dissolution of oxidation products of pyrite in normally alkaline ground water arid the subsequent dissolution of other minerals in the resulting acidic solution. Pyrite is a mineral having the molecular composition FeS2. It is metallic in luster, hard, and is usually found imbedded in coal seams and associated strata. Pyrite changes readily by oxidation to limonite, hydrous iron oxides of the formula Fe203 . H2O.(3) The oxidation products of pyrite also include soluble salts such as FeSOj~, Fe2(SOi~)3, H2SO~, SO2, and probably others. The actual mechanism of pyrite oxidation in bituminous coal mines has been studied by many investigators; that chemical oxidation plays an important role in acid water formation cannot be disputed. The essential elements for reaction are * Numbers in parentheses refer to literature listed at end. PAGENO="0229" 221 present. It is believed, however, that chemical oxidation is not the only means whereby acid forming constituents are produced from pyrite. Electrochemical and biological processes also have been cited as pyrite oxidation reactions. 1. Chemical oxidation of pyrite:- The following reactions describe the chemi- cal oxidation of pyrite in the presence of water: (a) FeS2 ÷ 70 + H20 = FeS0~ + H2SOj4 This reaction has been reported by many workers.(I~, 5, 6) In addition to (a) several subsequent reactions (7) may occur. These can be described as follows: (b) 6 FeS0i~ + 30 + 3 H20 = 3 Fe2(S0~)3 + 2 Fe(OH)3 (c) FeS2 + H2S0~ = FeS01~ + H2S + S (d) FeS2+50=FeO+2S02 Garrels and Thompson, 1960 (8) studied the oxidation of pyrite by iron sulfate and this led them to the conclusion that "pyrite is apparently oxidized by ferric ion to ferrous ion, hydrogen ion, and sulfate ion. The first step in the oxidation process, however, may be to produce molecular sulfur.' They represented the over- all reaction as 8 H20 + FeS2 + l1~ Fe~3 -l5 Fe~2 + 2 S01~ = + 16 H~ The exact mechanism of the reaction is still in doubt. The various inter- actions between pyrite, oxygen, water, and the various oxidation products have not been studied in detail. Moulton, 1957 (9) in a review of the mine drainage problem in Ohio, says that `many fundamental questions which are directly pertinent to a competent solution of the problem remain unanswered." 2. Electrochemical oxidation of pyrite:- Berzelius, 1821 (10) speculated that "it seems highly probable that the falling asunder of ordinary pyrites arises from the electrochemical action of electronegative bisuiphuret which is here and there mixed with it in small particles." PAGENO="0230" 222 More recent work at Johns Hopkins University, 1962 (II) has provided an insight into the electrochemical oxidation of pyrite. Pyrite conducts electricity and exhibits potentials in aqeous solutions. It is not surprising then, that the oxida- tion of pyrite in coal mines in the presence of water be considered electrochemical in nature. Clark, 1965 (12) defines an electrochemical reaction as a chemical oxi- dation reduction reaction "in which the oxidation reaction (anode reaction) and the reduction reaction (cathode reaction) are in goneral, occurring at different loca- tions on the conducting material (pyrite)." The oxidation reaction involves the oxidation of pyrite to Fe+2. The reduction reaction involves the reduction of Fe+3 and/or dissolved oxygen. The complex system of pyrite oxidation by electrochemical reaction also involves the generation of S gas and soluble sulfur species.(13) The theoretical considerations have been set forth by Clark, however, as far as is known, no practical evaluation of the theory has been made. 3. Bacterial oxidation of pyrite :- The oxidation of pyrite by bacteria has been studied in depth by many workers. Temple and Koebler (lIi) have made an excel- lent review of the progress achieved. The bacterium isolated as the active organism in coal pyrite oxidation is thio- bacillus thiooxidans.(l5) T. thjooxidans has been found in all acid mine waters tested for its presence. Moreover, it is found in abundance at the site of acid formation in the mine. T. thiooxidan is a member of the group of autotrophic bac- teria, distinguished from other living forms by the fact that they utilize the chemical energy from the oxidation of inorganic compounds and obtain all the element for this growth and metabolism from inorganic sources.'(ll~) This bacterium oxidizes sulfur or sulfur ion in pyrite to sulfate. Significant laboratory data have sub- stantiated the hypothesis that T. thiooxidans is an active pyrite oxidizing agent.(l1~ 1~. Overall concept of ac~.dic water formation:- The conclusions reached by most investigators is that the oxidation of pyrite with the subsequent formation of acid PAGENO="0231" 223 mine water is a combination of chemical, electrochemical, and bacterial oxidation. The possible mechanisms are as follows: (a) FeS2 (pyrite) + H~0 + 70 FeS0j~ + H2S0i~ (chemical reaction) This is probably the initial step in the production of acid and the rate at which it proceeds is variable and depends on such factors as pyrite properties and composition, temperature, and pH of the water. (b) 2 FeS0i~ + 0 + H2S0I~ Fe2(S0~)3 + H20 (bacterial) in presence of t. ferro oxidans and/or f. ferros oxidans This second step involves the bacterial oxidation by an iron oxidizing bacterium. (c) 7 Fe2(S0j~)3 + H20 = 15 FeS0~4 + 8 H2S0j~ (electrochemical) (12) (d) Fe2(S0~4j3 + FeS2 + H20 = 3 FeS0~ + 2 S (chemical) (e) S + 30 ÷ 1120 H2SOj~ (bacterial) (ll~) in presence of t. thiooxidan It is quite likely that the reaction mechanisms are more complicated than stated above. It is likely that additional intermediate reaction products such as SO2 and H2S occur depending on reaction conditions. Nonetheless the overall reac- tion as stated involves, initially, the oxidation of pyrite to soluble ferrous sul- fate and sulfuric acid. That little `free sulfuric acid is found is probably due to the reactions between other soluble mineral species and H2S0~. B. Source of Mine Drainage--Alkaline Water:- The problems associated with mine drainage are not restricted to acidic mine water. Alkaline water may also be dis- charged from mines and may be of such composition as to contain high quantities of iron which can be undesirable. Alkaline mine water results from the following reactions: (1) the dissolution of soluble iron bearing minerals, such as siderite, in slightly acid water. PAGENO="0232" 224 FeCO3 + H~ _~ Fe~2 + HCO3_ (19) or (2) by the neutralization and dilution of an acidic mine water with an alkaline ground water or (3) by the neutralization of an acidic mine water by content with limestone and/or other basic materials. The components of unaerated alkaline mine water include HCO3-, C03, C02, H2C03, Fe+2. Alkaline water containing iron which has been aerated usually con- tains little or no iron in solution. Most of the iron present appears as a col- loidal suspension. C. Characteristics of Mine Water 1. Iron Content - The principal iron species (5) which are found in mine water are believed to be Fee, ~ Fe(OH)2(s), and Fe(OH)3(s). Fe~2 is usually associated with the oxidation products of pyrite which have been leached from the mine by ground water. The principal soluble oxidation product is FeSO14. However, FeSOj~ hydrolyses and oxidizes to form various hydroxides, some of which are also soluble. Fe+2 in mine water is also associated with FeCO3. Natural ground water leaching such minerals as siderite wifl contain Fe+2. It is believed the FeCO3 dissociates and ionizes and is in equilibrium with Fe~2, C03, HC03. Fe+3 in mine water occurs in solution under specific conditions. At low pH, <3, Fe~3 is in solution. At higher pH, Fe~3 will be found in solution only as part of complexes formed with organix chelates, phosphates, and other anions. In the absence of chelating agents, Fe13 should not be found in significant quantities in solution in mine drainage above pH 3. a. Solubility of Iron - The principal iron species, Fe~2 and Fe~3, form hydroxides which are insoluble. The solubility product (20), Ksol, for Fe(OH)2 at 25 C in slightly basic media" is 5.25 x l0~-~. The distribution of soluble Fe~2 PAGENO="0233" 225 and insoluble Fe(OH)2 at various pH levels is shown in Figure 1, where percent com- position is plotted versus pH. Figure 1 was constructed according to methods de- scribed by Sillin.(22) The factor limiting concentration of Fe~2 in solution is the equilibrium concentration at any pH. Table 1 gives the distribution of the various forms in which Fe~2 occurs at various pH levels. TABLE 1. EQUILIBRIUM CO1a'OSITION FOR T1~ SYSTEM Fe~2 - Fe(OH)2 AT VARIOUS pH VALUES, EflCPRESSEDAS FRACTION OF TOTAL Fe~2 PRESENT +2 lFe(OH)2js - ~ Fe 1 2 - .[je(0H)2ja LFeOH~ 5.0 .999 .000005 .000005 .020 x 10 ~OOOO 6.o .903 .0147 .0147 .000002 .002 6.5 .1485 .253 .255 .00002 .oo68 7.0 .087 .14514 .1457 .00002 .0019 7.5 .00914 .1493 .1496 .00002 .0013 8.0 .00095 .1496 .1499 .00002 .0002 9.0 .00001 .1498 .501 .00002 .00002 s = solid 1 = FeOH~ + OH- -, Fe(OH)2 2=Fe~2 +2OH-~Fe(QH)2 a = aqueous From these data it appears that about 50 percent of the Fe(OH)2 formed at any pH is due to the intermediate reaction Fe0H~ + 0H while the remaining 50 percent is formed directly from Fe~2 + 2 0H. Fe+3 is also found in mine water and as described earlier, is soluble only under special conditions. Like Fe42, the solubility can be determined from a con- sideration of the various equilibria involved. Figure 2 is a distribution diagram PAGENO="0234" z LU U LU 0~ z 0 I- LI) 0 0~ 0 U Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 2026G1 pH Figure 1. Distribution of Fe~2 and Fe(OH)25 as a Function of pH PAGENO="0235" 227 Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 202602 Figure 2. Distribution of Fe+3 and Fe(OH)3 as a Function of pH z 601 pH PAGENO="0236" 228 showing the percent composition versus pH. Table 2 gives the distribution at equilibrium of the various forms in which Fe~3 occurs at various pH levels. TABLE 2. EQUILIBRIUM COI~TOSITION FOR TRE SYSTEM Fe~3 - Fe (OH)3 PT VARIOUS pH VALUES, EXPRESSED AS FRACTION OF TOTAL Fe~3 PRESENT pH Fe~3 FeOH~2 FeOH~ + 2OH-4Fe(OH)3 a Fe~3 + 3 OH-4 Fe(OH)3 ~ 1.00 .8677 .0321 .01314 .o868 1.25 .191+7 .1401+9 .0535 .31466 1.50 .0979 .111414 .147814 .3092 1.75 .0213 .01140 .5859 .3787 2.00 .0085 .0031 .13214 .8558 3.00 .0000o8 .00003 .1339 .8659 In addition to the above, Fe(OHYF2 and Fe(OH)3a are also reported. The overall solubility of Fe~2 and Fe~3 in mine water is determined by many factors, none of which can be evaluated as an isolated variable, however, for both Fe+2 and Fe13 the limiting solubility at any pH is the solubility satisfying the equations: K~0i Fe(OH)2 = [Fe~2)[OH~J 2 KsolF(OH) = [~e~3j 0Hj3 as shown in Table 3. PAGENO="0237" 229 TABLE 3. SOLUBILITY OF Fe(OH)2 AND Fe(OH)3 FROM K~0i AT 25 C ic501 Fe(OH)2 = 5.25 x lo-J-~; Ksoi Fe(OH)3 = 1 x lo~8 (P~~o 1O~ is reported.) pH Fe~2, ppm Fe~3, ppm 1 ~6ooo 2 56o 3 o.~6 0.00056 5 6 29I~OO 7 29I~ 8 2.9t~ 9 O.O29I~ b. Oxidation of Ferrous Iron - Weiss studied the mechanism of the ferrous oxidation and concluded that the reaction proceeded according to the following mechanism: Fe~2 + 02 ~ Fe~3 + HO2 Fe +2 + HO2 -, Fe~3 + H202 Fe~2 + H202 ` Fe~ + HO + H~O Fe~2 + HO -~ Fe~3 + H20 The above reactions are not balanced with respect to H+ and, therefore, do not show the possible dependence of reaction rate on this variable. Huffman and Davidson, 1956 (23) found that `the reaction I~ Fe~ + 02 -, 14 Fe" + 2 H2O, at 1140-180° in 1 F H2S014, PAGENO="0238" 230 proceeds by simultaneous bimolecular and termolecular reaction paths: _d(FeH)/dt = kb(Fe")Po2 + kt(Fe")2Po2. At 159°, kb = 1.93 x i~-3 atm ~ sec ~, ic~ = i.6o x io~ M1 atm -1 sec 1; the respective activation energies were measured as 13.1~ (±2) and 16.3 (~2) kcal. At 30.5°, only the termolecuJ.ar path is observed (contrary to the predictions of the high temperature activation energies); kt = 2.78 x io6 M~- atm 1 (1 F H2SO~). The variation of rate with S0~ indicates independent reactions, (1/2)ku 2 Fe~ + 02 ~> 2 Fe + 11202, and (1/2)k FeS01~ + Fe~ + ~2 ______ 2 Fe" + 11202, where = l.1~ x 10-6 k5 3.1 x i05 M1 atm sec ~, and 11FS01~ = 1.1 M1. The reaction rate increases a small amount with increasing pH. Catalysis by Cu~ follows the rate law -d(Fe~~)/dt = Ltk9(Fe'1)(Cu~~) and is probably initiated by Fe~ + Cu~ -~ Fe'~ + Cu In 0.23 F H2S0j~, 0.35 F Na2S0~, k9 = 1.9 x l0~ M1 sec The rate-determining step for the bimolecular path is presumably either: (la)Fe~ ÷ 02 FeIl + 1102, or (lb)Fe1 + 02 -4 Fe'V + H202; for tha termolecular path it is 2 Fe" + 02 -~ 2 Fe" + 11202. There is evidence that the bimolecular path, the termolecular path and the Cu~~ catalyzed path are all accelerated by complexing anions, X, and to an extent depend- ing on the affinity of X for Fe+++. Furthermore, strong complexers favor the occur- rence of the bimolecular path.' PAGENO="0239" 231 At a given pH, the rate of reaction decreases in the series pyrophosphate, phosphate, chloride, sulfate, and perchiorate. Cher and Davidson, 1955 (2I~) examined the kinetics of the Fe~2 - 02 system in phosphoric acid solution. They observed that the rate law for the Fe~2, 02 reaction in H3PO~ , NaH2P0~ solutions (1.0 - 1.1 M) is: -d(Fe~)/dt = k(Fe~)Po2 (H2POt~-)2, where k = L5 ( ± 0.3) atm -l mole 2 liter2 hr -l at 3Q0 The activation energy is 20 (± 2) keel. There is some heterogeneous reaction on a glass wool surface, but it is believed that the above rate data apply to the homo- geneous reaction. There is no inhibition by added Fe~+. A one-electron reaction mechanism with the rate-determining step, Fe~ + 02 -` Fe+~ + HO2, is consistent with the results. The marked catalytic effect of added Cu~ can be explained by the reactions (unbalanced with respect to H~): Fe~ + Cu~ ~ Fe+++ + Cu+ + 02 Cu~ HO2; k8 k10 HO2 + Fe~ ~ Fe~ + H202. At 3O~, ~i 1 M, (H2Po~) = O.1~3I~ T, (H2POIt-) = 0.302 F, P~2 = 150 mm, k7 = 1.0 x lO~ M~ hr 1, k9/k8 = 5.1 x 10-2 H atm 1, and k10/k3 = 23. Stutem and Lee, 1961 (25) report that the rate of ferrous iron in bicarbonate solutions follows the law -d Fe~] /dt = k [Fefi P02 OHj 2 Thus, the oxidation of ferrous iron is directly related to the available oxygen, the presence of complexing anions, and the concentration of various catalytic materials, such as Cu+2. Lamb and Elder, 1931 (26) also report catalytic activity due to platinum black and charcoal. PAGENO="0240" 232 2. Aluminum, Manganese, Calcium, Magnesium Content: - In addition to iron, four other major cations occur, namely, aluminum, manganese, calcium and magnesium. Trace elements may also be present. Aluminum and manganese are found in mine water due to the dissolution of minerals in the strata in contact with acid mine water. Calcium and' magnesium are major cationic components of most ground water, due to dissolution of limestone, dolomites, and magnesites. Aluminum and manganese are significant mine water components in that they form insoluble hydroxides at pH levels obtained during mine water treatment. 3. Total Acidity:- Total acidity is defined (27) as the amount of standard base required to titrate a sample of mine water to pH 8.3 after removal of dis- solved CO2~ The total acidity does not indicate the acid condition, i.e., the [H+j of the mine water, but reflects the potential total quantity of Hj which is liberated during the oxidation and hydrolysis of various cations in solution. For example, Fe~2+3Hpo ~ Fe(OH)3+3H~+e represents the overall reaction involved in the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron and the subsequent hydrolysis of the Fe~3 ion. A1~3 and Mn~2 are two other mine water components which contribute to acidity. The relative acidity of each of the mine water constituents is as follows: H4 1 ppm of H4 = ppm of acidity at H2S014 Fe42 1 ppm of Fe~2 = 1.75 ppm of acidity as H2SO~ Fe~3 1 ppm of Fe~'3 = 2.625 ppm of acidity as H2SOj4 1 ppm of Al43 = 5.L~1~ ppm of acidity as H2SOj~ 1 ppm of Ma~2 = 1.78 ppm of acidity as H2SO~ PAGENO="0241" 233 4. p~:- The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity is the theoreti- cal definition of pH. In practice pH is defined by the approximate relation pH = -log10 g~j It is measured by a pH meter usually using the calomel-glass electrode system. Although pH is a usefuJ.. parameter in assessing the quality of mine water, it does not establish the true pollutional potential of a water. The following data relate pH to sulfuric acid acidity: pH Acidity as H230I~, ppm pH Acidity as H2SOL~, ppm 2 1~90 5 O.1~9 3 L~9 6 0.0~49 L~.9 7 0.00149 The accurate measurement of pH in the field is complicated by the many variables affecting the measurement such as temperature, variability of composition, and dissolved gases. 94-370 0-68-16 PAGENO="0242" 234 II. TREATMENT OF MINE DRAINAGE The principal methods studied for the treatment of mine drainage are designed primarily to neutralize the acidity and to remove the iron to satisfactory levels. The recent summary by Barthauer, 1966 (27) lists the methods which have been evaluated experimentally. Application of any of the methods as economically and technically practical processes has yet to be achieved. Table 1~ lists the methods described by Barthauer. TABLE 14. LIST OF PROCESS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NINE DRAINAGE A. Lime neutralization. B. Limestone and dolomite neutralization. C. Potassium permanganate process. D. Sodium hydroxide neutralization. E. Ammonium hydroxide neutralization. F. Sodium sulfide treatment. G. Ozone treatment. H. Bacteriophage process. I. Demineralization processes. A. Hydrated Lime System:--The neutralization of mine water by Ca(OH)2 involves the following chemical equilibria: H~ + OH = 1120 Fe~2 + 2(0H) = Fe(OH)2 PAGENO="0243" 235 Fe~3 + 3(0H) = Fe (OH)3 A.l~3 + 3(0H) = Al(OH)3 2HSO~ + Ca~2 = Ca(HSOi~)2 + Ca~2 = CaSOIt The overall equilibrium expression for the reactions has not been developed as yet. Consideration must also be given to the H+ due to Fe+2 = Fe+3 reaction. The extent of reaction to form various hydrates and other species should also be consid- ered. - It is not be chance that most efforts to develop a mine water process involve lime neutralization. Lime is generally available, has a high basicity, and the cost, while high, is less than all other bases except limestone and waste material. The basicity (28) of lime is measured by determining the total neutralizing power (TSP) by titration with standard acid. Pure CaCO3 has a TSP of 106, CmO has a TSP of 178, *and Ca(OH)2 has a TSP of 135 (assuming 100 percent purity). The reactivity of lime is related to method of preparation and surface area. Whitman (29~,for example, found highest reactivity and fastest rate of dissolution with the finest hydrates of largest surface area. The cost of lime (30) is as follows: (1) Lime, chemical, hydrated $19.25/ton f.o.b. (2) Lime, chemical, quicklime $15.50/ton f.o.b. The theoretical requirements of lime and hydrated lime for neutralization of sulfuric acid are: (1) Lime--l pound of lime (CaO) will neutralize 1.75 pounds of acid. (2) Hydrated lime--l pound of Ca(OH)2 will neutralize 1.32 pounds of acid. PAGENO="0244" 236 The research conducted on developing a method of mine water treatment using lime have been summarized by many authors. The review by Glower, 1967 (31) is the basis for the following discussion. Crichton, 1928 (32) discussed the application of the hydrated lime process to acid mine drainages and reported that estimates of the costs of treatment ranged frcm 15 to 25 cents/l,000 U.S. gal. Kaplan, 1936 (33) reported attempts to prepare marketable by-products such as rouge from acid mine drainage but no reports of the full-scale application of these proposals have been seen. During the period from 1930 to 19146, reports on the treatment of acid mine drainage by lime were singularly absent from the technical literature. The treatment of acid mine drainage by lime to produce water for coal prep- aration plants (breakers) was reported by Bilharz, 19149 (314); he described the use of lime for the treatment of an acid mine drainage from metafliferous mines the Tn-state Field. These drainages contained 6,000 mg/i of iron and 2,000 mg/i of zinc in solution. During subsequent years, many, publications appeared on the handling, selection and application of lime to acid wastes, particularly to steel pickle effluents, but these reports did not add to the fund of knowledge concerning the treatment of acid mine drainage. Braley, 1951 (35) reported the results of pilot plant studies of acid mine drainage neutralization processes and found that although lime gave a rapid and complete reaction, the sludge settled very slowly. It was concluded that treatment with lime or any other alkali would not be practicable because of the and other difficulties involved," but cost estimates were not provided to support this conclusion. The treatment of acid mine drainages in the Witwatersrand, South Africa, was described by F. C. Johnson, l952.(36) These drainages contained sulphuric acid, PAGENO="0245" 237 ferrous, ferric, manganese, nickel, magnesium and calcium sulphates, chlorides and dissolved silica. The treatment was largely conducted underground, the precipitated contaminants being left in underground sumps. The objects of the treatment were to limit erosion and corrosion of the mine drainage equipment and to supply water for process and dust suppression purposes. The scale of the operations may be judged by the reported use of over 15,000 tons of lime by the Rand group of mines in the year 1951. The use of lime in the purification of acid mine drainages from lignite mines in Eastern Germany was described by Ruamel, 1959 (37), Kadner, 1961 (38) and revealed that some 80,000,000 Imp. gal of acid mine drainage were being treated each day in the Nimierlausitz. The successful application of lime to the treatment of acid drainage from an abandoned coal mine which had been intercepted by strip workings was reported by Brant, 1960. (39) The neutralized drainage was passed through ponds which successfully removed the precipitated metal salts. During the last few years, a detailed investigation of the lime process for acid mine drainage treatment has been made during the project known as `Operation Yellowboy" which was sponsored by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The objectives of this work were described by Maneval, 1965 (1~o) and results of the tests have been reported by Girard, 1966 (La), and Charmbury, 1967. (1t2) The applicability of lime treatment to at least one acid mine drainage has been confirmed, and the costs of treatment in this one case were $l.09/l,000 U~S. gal, equivalent to a cost of 5.2 cents/short ton on the coal produced. Lime or hydrated lime neutralization processes have several major drawbacks. These include cost of reagent and the production of a voluminous sludge which is difficult to separate and handle subsequently. For these reasons, research has been conducted by many workers to evaluate the use of limestone as a neutralizing agent. PAGENO="0246" 238 B. Limestone and Dolomite Systenis:--Limestones and dolomites are naturally occurring carbonate minerals. The ratio of Ca to Mg varies. Stones with a high Ca ccntent are classed as limestones, CaCO3. A dolomite has a composition by weight of 5I~.3 percent CaCO3 and L~5.7 percent Mg CO3. Limestones and dolcmites from different beds have different physical and to some extent,chemical properties. The chemical equilibrium involved in limestone neutralization include the fol- lowing: H~ + 0H = H20 H~ + C03 = HC03 H~ + HC03 = H2CO3 H2C03 = CO2 + 1120 The pH of limestone in distilled CO2-free water varies between 8 and 9. However, due to equilibria between acid mine water constituents and also due to C02 content of the treated water, the pH of the resulting solution is between 6 to 7.5. With rigorous aeration, pH values as high as 8 have been reported. (145) 1. Early Work--The first reported application of limestone to acid mine drainage treatment was at the Calumet Mine, Westmorelanci County, Pennsylvania, in the year 1916. The process was described by Tracy, 1921. (1414) Calcium carbonate limestone was mixed in powder form with an acid mine drainage and the precipitate was thickened by sedimentation and finally dried on a steam drum. The object of the process was to prepare water for industrial purposes and iron oxide for gas purification and for use as a pigment. The process of acid mine drainage in a tank filled with marl was reported by Mason, 1922 (45), and Travers, l928b (1+6) was granted Patents relating to the use of porous limestone for the treatment of acid mine drainage. In this process, the bulk of the acidity was removed by limestone and the neutralization was completed by lime. PAGENO="0247" 239 The treatment of an acid mine drainage by limestone was reported by Braley, 1931. (35) The costs of limectcne were rep~rtcd to be $3.60/short ton of sulphuric ~id neutralized, compared with $10.20 for hydrated lime and $20.16 for soda ash (sodium carbonate). The limestone tests were conducted in a wooden flume containing about 5 tons of 1 x 2 in limestone and the contact time was varied between 10 minutes and 60 minutes. Under these conditions, about half of the acid present in the acid mine drainage was neutralized. In a further experiment, 1,500 lb of 1 x 2 in limestone was mechanically agitated with the acid mine drainage and this test also was considered to be unsuccessful, since the reaction time required to neutralize one pound of acid increased from L~ hours at the first run to 28 hours at the thirty- eighth run. Braley concluded that, although acid mine drainage can be chemically treated with lime or other alkalis to neutralize the acid, such a method is not practical or feasible because of the economic and other difficulties involved. In a report on the treatment of acid mine drainage in the Witwatersrand, F. C. Johnson, 1951 (36) stated that lime was the preferred reagent since the low activity of limestone required that an excess be used, and the inadequate mixing facilities of the inbye treatment plants led to the loss of much of the reagent used. Limestone was stated to have the further disadvantage that it did not remove ferrous salts from the solution. The treatment of plating and other acid wastes in beds of calcite grit was reported by Lukas in 1955. The pH value was raised suf- ficiently to permit the discharge of the wastes to public sewers. The feed rate to the calcite beds was 26 U.S. gal/rain sq ft and the costs were otated to be 17 cents/ 1,000 U.S. gal. A study of the mechanism of the interaction at the interface of ferric oxide hydrates, calcium sulphate, and calcium carbonate in the limestone neutralization of mine drainage was reported by Ohyama, 1957. (1#7) Brant, 1960 (39) reported that PAGENO="0248" 240 limestone cribs built into a surface stream containing an acid mine drainage soon lost their effectiveness and lime had to be used to achieve neutralization. The results of the above-reported investigations seem to indicate that acid mine water neutralization by limestone is not practical. The most recent research efforts in this area are more promising. 2. Results of Recent Work:--Deul, et al, 1967 (L~3) demonstrated a laboratory- scale technique for limestone treatment of a wide range of mine waters. Limestone treatment was accomplished `using a small cement mixer as a simple reactor to provide abrasive agitation of limestone and mine water" Process variables "must be defined" before the development of the process is complete. This work is cur- rently in progress. Glover, 1967 (37) developed a continuous upflow expanded bed process using fine limestone grit. The process is believed to be acceptable providing that " a sup- plementary method of removing ferrous salts from the acid mine drainage" is found. As of the writing of this report, only one full-scale application of limestone treatment is in operation, and this on an experimental basis. The Rochester and Pittsburg Coal Company, Indiana, Pennsylvania, is currently using a rotating drum reactor followed by a settling basin for the treatment of 200,000 gpd of mine water containing 50 ppm of ferric iron. Evaluation of the process is in progress. The problems associated with limestone neutralization involve the following: 1. Coating of the limestone particles with CaSOL~ (a reaction product). 2. Non-reactivity of limestone with ferrous iron. Research is needed to find solutions to these problems. PAGENO="0249" 241 C. Potassium Permanganate Systems:--The chemical reactions involved in the treatment of Fe+2 with potassium permanganate are: Fe~2 ~ Fe~3 + e Mn0j~ + 2H20 + 3e - ~ Mn02 + The use of KMnO4 has been evaluated experimentally by Barnes & Tucker Coal Co., 1966 (L~8) for treatment l.L~ x io6 gpd of alkaline water being discharged from the Lancashire No. 15 mine. The iron content of the water averages 20 ppm with a fluctuation of l.6_6I~ ppm. The permanganate is being evaluated as a chemical oxidant for Fe~2. Reported cost of the KMnO)4 is 25-I~O cents/lb. At 20 ppm iron, the reagent cost/thousand gallons is reported at $0.026. The maximum possible reagent cost at ~ ppm Fe is $0.083/M gal. This is equivalent to $122.00 per day. Capital cost of the complete system has not been reported, however, the total cost includes cost of: 1. KNn0L~ storage tank. 2. 20 x 20 ft, 1L~,000 gal capacity mixino tank. 3. 6 x L~O x 150 ft, 270,000 gal capacity settling pond. 14~ ~ x 140 ft, 1,150 sq ft filtering area, sand filter. 5. Auxiliary pumps, meters, piping. Construction of the experimental unit has been completed. In addition to the above-reported equipment, two large holding ponds have also been added. Results of the initial experiences with permanganate have not been published. D. Sodium Hydroxide Neutralization System:--The reactions of NaOH with mine water constituents are basically identical with the Ca(OH)e reactions. NaOH is a much stronger base than Ca(OH)2 and has the advantage of being added as a liquid rather PAGENO="0250" 242 than solid (slurry). NaOH costs $60/ton f.o.b. NaOH reacts with mine water constit- uents to form metallic hydroxides and Na2S0j~. The resulting water is soft as compared to the water resulting from lime neutralization. The relative merits of soft versus hard water discharged into a stream must be evaluated on the basis of end use of the water. Only one full-scale (L~9) evaluation of NaOH treatment of mine water has been reported. A large midwest coal producer has been treating water impounded in abandoned coal strip mining pits for use as the water supply for its coal prep- aration plant. The resulting treated water was of such character as to affect the operation of the froth flotation operation in the plant. It is believed that the water treated with NaOH adversely affected the formation of the froth. The NaOH treatment was stopped. E. Ainmonium Hydroxide Systems:--NHi~OH reacts with acid mine water similarly to NaOH and Ca(OH)2. Widespread uses of NH)~0H is not expected due to high cost $92/ton and to the potentially hazardous affect on fish.(50) One full-scale treatment plant using anhydrous NH3 for treating strip pit water is known.(5l) The plant operates on a closed loop cycle. F. Sodium Sulfide System:--The reactions involved in the treatment of mine water with sodium sulfide include the following: S + Fe~2 -` FeS 3S= + 2Fe~3 - Fe2S3 Both ferrous and ferric sulfides are insoluble and can be separated from water. In addition, the use of sodium sulfide will simultaneously neutralize the treated water. Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., under a grant from the Appalachian Com- mission, issued June 26, 1967, has initiated an evaluation of the use of sulfides as a potential mine water treatment. No data are available as yet. PAGENO="0251" 243 *G. Ozone Systern:--The reaction of ferrous iron in acid solution with ozone is: 2Fe~2 + 03 + 2H~ = 2Fe~3 + ÷ 1120 The reaction products are dependent on pH and iron concentration. Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, like KMnOI~ its principal function is to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric, consequently, ozone must be used in conjunction with a Buitable neutralizing agent. The application of ozone treatment to acid mine drainage has been studied by Rozelle, et al, 1965.(52) Results of initial work indicate that the rate of oxidation is independent of the iron concentration and temperature, but dependent on the rate of addition of ozone. It was also observed that ozone appears to have a catalytic effect" on the oxidation of Fe+2 at low pH values. Work on actual mine water samples indicated that Mn42 is also oxidized by ozone, thereby increasing the ozone demand. No cost data were given. The work is still in progress. H. Bacteriological Oxidation System:--The oxidation of Fe~2 by the bacterium ferrobacillus ferro-oxidans was studied by Leathen.(6) Other iron oxidizing bacteria have also been observed.(8) Glover (31) has reported on an activated sludge process for Fe42 oxidation. The process involves the following operations: 1. Flow balancing system. 2. Biochemical oxidation tanks. 3. Sedimentation tanks (sludge). I~. Active sludge recycle tanks. 5. Limestone, grit neutralization. 6. Iron sludge sedimentation. 7. Iron sludge filtration. PAGENO="0252" 244 Glover reports that the above-described process is applicable to mine drainage which contains more than 10-20 ppm of dissolved iron and a total acidity of more than 25 ppm. Temperature limits are 0-35 C. As far as is known the process has never been evaluated on a large scale. No full-scale biochemical processes have been built for treating mine water. I. Demineralization Processes:--The processes generally classed as demineralization process are the many saline water conversion process for producing potable water. (53) Two of the processes have been evaluated experimentally as mine water treatment processes. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1965 (5L~) has evaluated the ap- plication of flash distillation to mine water treatment. General Dynamics Corporation, 1966 (55) conducted a 20-day evaluation of the reverse osmosis process for the Office of Saline Water. Details of each of the various processes will not be presented herein, however, all of the demineralization processes have two general characteristics in common and these will be discussed briefly. AU of the saline water conversion processes provide as a product potable water, that is water of such quality that it can be used for drinking water. More generally, these processes produce fresh water from salt or brackish water. (53) Salt or sea water is defined as water containing approximately 35,000 ppm of dis- solved solids. Brackish water is defined as water ranging from 1,000 ppm to 35,000 ppm of dissolved solids. Fresh water contains less than 1,000 ppm of dis- solved solids. It is interesting to note that the Westinghouse and General Dynamics tests were conducted on water which would be classed as brackish by the above definitions. Many mine waters are now being used as drinking water supplies as discharged with normal water treatment practice applied. These water supplies are generally `polluted acid mine water. PAGENO="0253" 245 With the exception of ion exchange processes, all of the saline water conversion processes produce a `brine' concentrate, which in the case of mine water would be a concentrated mine water which must still be treated prior to discharge. Schroeder, et a]., 1966 (56) have evaluated all of the saline water processes as mine water treatment processes. The conclusions made from the report are: (1) saline water conversion processes theoretically can be applied to mine water treatment to produce potable water, (2) the cost of the treatment of mine water by the saline water processes range from $O.36/l,000 gal to $3.05/l,000 gal depending on feed rate, operating factor, and water composition. Schroeder concluded that "saline water conversion processes. . .would not have application to acid mine waters except in cases where a municipality needed an additional supply of potable water meeting Public Health standards." J. Bacteriophage Systems:--Phages are a group of bacteria-specific viruses capable of dissolving (lysing) growing bacteria. Host heterotrophic bacteria are suscep- tible to bacteriophage. Utilization of such a virus in preventing the formation of acid mine water by bacterial oxidation of pyrite is a concept developed by the NSA Research Corp., 1965.(57) Preliminary results have not been conclusive. Data obtained thus far indicate that bacterial oxidation of pyrite is inhibited by phages; however, incompletely. Work is being continued to attempt to obtain greater virulence in phages. PAGENO="0254" 246 III * SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL No discussion of treatment of mine drainage, whether such treatment be netitral- ization, oxidation, demineralization or any combination of these, is complete with- out consideration of the facets of sludge removal. These might include conditioning, dewatering, drying, materials recovery and disposal. Industry has often found the economic disposal of sludge from their waste treatment processes to be one of the most difficult problems encountered. As experience and research in the treatment of mine water develops, it is becoming increasingly evident that the disposal of these waste products will emerge as a major problem. In the lime neutralization process the resulting sludge, mostly hydrated iron oxide, is allowed to settle in large basins or lagoons. If the lagoons are used for de-watering and drying, subsurface drainage must be provided and they must periodically be taken out of service while removal of the concentrated sludge is accomplished by hydraulic dredges, draglines, or bulldozers for final disposal. Otherwise, the sludge is pumped from the lagoon bed with suitable apparatus and the solids discarded. These solids are insoluble in water and can be buried without danger that they may redissolve to any considerable extent and again contribute to contamination of streams * In the mining areas, land suitable for construction of sludge ponds and burial of solids is often not avmilable due to the steepness of the terrain where suitable land is available. It has been assumed that burial costs will amount to $1.00 per ton on the basis of the dry solids.(58) Unfortunately, the precipitated material retains significant quantities of water, in some cases up to 98 percent, so that disposal involves handling not only of the solids but large quantities of water. Mechanical means of reducing the amount of water in this sludge by the use of clarifiers and filters, particularly PAGENO="0255" 247 sand filters, and chemical means using flocculation aids which would change the nature of the precipitant for example with respect to the degree of hydration, should be examined. A report (59) submitted to the Coal Research Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on subsurface waste disposal in relation to acid mine water recommends construction of a pilot injection well to provide data to further evaluate this disposal method for acid mine water. A truly economical solution to the temporary treatment of this water would be a process resulting in a useful product. In 1930, Kaplan (60) developed a method on a laboratory scale for recovering paint pigments of varying colors from acid mine drainage, but the cost for recovery of the by-products on a commercial scale was too high and the process has never been industrially developed.(6l) Considera- tion was also given to processing sludge to provide a feed for blast furnaces. It was feared that impurities present in the solids would make the product unsuitable. (62) EAZ:v 202~+ PAGENO="0256" 248 REFERENCES (1) Pliny, `Historia naturalis, circa 1st century. (2) Agricola, G., "De re rnetallica,' (1556). (3) Palache, C., et al, `Dana's system of mineralogy," Vols. I and II, 7th ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., i9~ii4. (1~) Braley, S. A., "Summary Report of Mellon Institute Fellowship 326B," (l95~). (5) Stumm, W. A., "Oxygenation of ferrous iron - Properties of aqueous iron as related to mine drainage pollution," Symp. on Acid Mine Drainage Research, Pittsburgh, Nay 1965, 51-63 (1965). (6) Nelson, H. W., at al, "Oxidation of pyritic sulfur in bituminous coal," md. Eng. Chem. 25 (12), 1355-8 (1933). (7) Wurm, A., Zeit. prakt. gevl. 35, 130 (1927). (8) Garrels, R. M. and Thompson, M. E., "Oxidation of pyrite by iron sulfate solutions," Am. J. Sci. 258-A, 57-67 (1960). (9) Moulton, E. Q., "The acid mine drainage problem in Ohio," Ohio State Univ., Eng. Expt. Sta. Bull. 166 (1957). (10) Berzelius, J. J., Ann. Chin. Phys. 9 (2), l4~o (1821). (11) Clark, C. S., "A basic study of acid mine drainage formation,'1 N. of Sc. Thesis, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1962. (12) Clark, C. S., "The oxidation of coal mine pyrites," Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1965. (13) Sato, M., "Oxidation of sulfide ore bodies II, Oxidation mechanisms of sulfide minerals at 25° C," Econ. Gaol. 55, 1206-31 (1960). (l1~) Temple, K. L. and Koehler, W. A., "Drainage from bituminous coal mines," West Va. Univ., Eng. Expt. Sta. Has. Bull. 25 (195I~). PAGENO="0257" 249 Colmer, A. B. and Hinkle, N. E., "The role of microorganisms in acid mine drainage: A preliminary report," Science 106, 253-65 (19147). (16) Leathen, W. W., et al, "Ferrobacillus ferrooxidans: A chemosynthetic auto- trophic bacterium,' 3. Bacteriol. 72, 700-14 (1956). (17) Temple, K. L. and Colmer, A. B., `The autotrophic oxidation of iron by a new bacterium, Thiobacillus ferrooxidans," 3. Bacteriol. 62, 605-11 (1951). (18) Beck, 3. V., "A ferrous-ion-oxidizing bacterium," 3. Bacteriol. 79, 502-9 (1960). (19) Hem, J. D., "Chemistry of iron in natural water restraints on dissolved ferrous iron imposed by bicarbonate, redox potential, and pH," U.S. Gaol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 11459-B (1960). (20) Gayer, K. H. and Woontner, L., "The solubility of ferrous hydroxide and ferric hydroxide in acidic and basic media at 25," 3. Phys. Chem. 60 (11), 1569-71 (1956). (21) Latimer, W. N., "The Oxidation States of the Elements and Their Potentials in Aqueous Solutions," 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, N. 3.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1952. (22) Sillin, L. G., "Graphic Presentation of Equilibrium Data," New York: Inter- science Publishers, 1959. (23) Huffman, R. E. and Davidson, N., "Kinetics of the ferrous iron-oxygen reaction in sulfuric acid solution," J. Pin. Chem. Soc. 78, 14836-141 (1956). (214) Char, H. and Davidson, N., "The kinetics of the oxygenation of ferrous iron in phosphoric acid solution," 3. Pm. Chem. Soc. 77 (2), 793-8 (1955). (25) Stuinm, W. and Lee, G. F., "Oxygenation of ferrous iron," md. Eng. Chem. 53 (2), 1143-6 (1961). 94-376 O-68----17 PAGENO="0258" 250 (26) Lamb, A. B. and Elder, L. W., Jr., `The electromotive activation of oxygen," J. Pin. Chem. Soc. 53 (1), 137-63 (1931). (27) Barthauer, G. L., "Mine drainage treatment process-fact and fiction," 1966 Annual Spring Meeting, West Va. Coal Mining Institute, Morgantown, West Va., April 22-23, 1966. (28) Boynton, R. S., "Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone," New York: Interscience Publ., 1966. p 111. (29) Ibid., pp 317-8. (30) Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter 191 (26), (June 26, 1967). (31) Giover, H. G., "The control of acid mine drainage pollution by biochemical oxidation and limestone neutralisation treatment," Paper presented at Purdue Industrial Waste Conf., May 1967. (32) Crichton, A. B., "Disposal of drainage from coal mines," Trans. Pin. Soc. Civil Engrs. 92, l332-1~2 (1928). (33) Kaplan, B. B., "Process of purifying water," U.S. Pat. 1,878,525 (Sept. 20, 1932). (31t) Bilharz, 0. W., "Experience with acid mine water drainage in the tn-state field," Trans. Afl 181, 282-91. (35) Braley, S. A., "A Pilot Plant Study of the Neutralization of Acid Drainage from Bituminous Coal Mines," Pittsburgh: Mellon Inst., 1951. (36) Johnson, F. C., "The treatment and filtration of the underground mine water at Witwatersrand," J. S. African Inst. Mach. Engrs. 2, 91-117 (1952). (37) Runinel, W., "Removal of acid and iron from untreated and waste waters," Ger. Pat. (D.D.R.) l14,9~~6. (38) Kadner, W., "The treatment and purification of mine waters with high iron content," Vom Wasser 28, 131-145 (1961). PAGENO="0259" 251 (39) Brant, N. A. and ~oulton, E. Q., "Acid mine drainage manual," Ohio State Univ., Eng. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 179 (1960). (L~O) Maneval, D. R. and Charmbury, H. B., "Acid nine water mobile treatment plant," Mining Congress J. 51 (3), 69-71 (1965). (`a) Girard, L. and Kaplan, R. A., "Design and economics of acid mine drainage treatment plant - Operation Yellowboy," Pm. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 10 (1), 107-16 (1966). (I~2) Charmbury, H. B. and Maneval, D. R., "Operation Yellowboy - Design and economics of a lime neutralization mine drainage treatment plant," Paper presented at 96th Annual Meeting, AIME, Los Angeles, 1967. (L~3) Deul, M. and Mikoh, E. A., "Mine water research - Neutralization," U.S. Bur. Mines, Bept. Invest. 6987 (1967). (1~) Tracy, L. D., "Mine water neutralization plant at Caluniet mine," Trans. Afl~ ~ 609-32 (1921). (L~5) Mason, U. C., "Will neutralize mine water with marl before pumping it to surface," Coal Age 22, 201-2 (1922). (146) Travers, J. T., "Treatment of polluted wastes," U.S. Pat. 1,685,301 (1928). (147) Ohyaina, T., at al, "The sedimentation characteristics of calcium carbonate neutralization method in mine water disposal," Tohoku Kozan 14 (3), 21-6 (1957). (148) Jones, D. C., "Why use KMnO14 on mine drainage?" Coal Mining Processing 3 (12), 38-140 (1966). (149) Private Communication. (50) McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W., "Water Quality Criteria," State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, Calif., Publication No. 3-A, 1963. (51) Private Communication. PAGENO="0260" 252 (52) Simpson, D. 0. arid P.ozeile, B. B., "Studies on the removal of iron from acid mine drainage, Syinp. on Acid Mine Drainage Research, Pittsburgh, May 1965, 61#_82 (1965). (53) `The A-B-Seas of Desalting,' U.S. Dept. Interior, Office of Saline Water. (514) "Suinniary Report of Phase I of the Feasibility Study of Application of Flask Distillation Process for Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage Water," Report to Pa. Dept. of runes and Mineral Industries from Westinghouse Electric Corp., W~ater Province Dept., Lester, Pa., 1965. (55) Riedinger, A. and Schultz, J., "Acid mine water reverse osmosis test,' Kittan- ning, Pa., Report to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Saline Water. (56) Schroeder, W. C. and Marchello, J. M., "Study and analysis of the application of saline water conversion processes to acid mine water," U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Saline Water, R. and D. Progress Report No. 199, (1966). (57) Shearer, B. E. and Everson, W. A., "Study of bacteriophages in controlling acid mine water," Syrnp. on Acid Mine Drainage Research, Pittsburgh, May 1965, 23-314 (1965). (~8) U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Saline Water, B. and D. Progress Rept. 199, 38 (1966). (59) Dept. of Mining, College of Mineral Industries, Pa. State Univ., Special Research Rapt. SR-52, 70 pp. (1965). (60) Kaplan, B. B., Proc. West Va. Acad. Sci. 14, 90-2 (1930). (61) Rudolfs, W., "Industrial Wastes," Mew York: Reinhold Publishing Co., 1953. p 3147. (62) U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Saline Water, R. and D. Progress Rapt. 199, 38 (1966). PAGENO="0261" 253 STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. BURT, DIRECTOR, Am AND WATER RESOURCES, CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and Members. The California Manufacturers Association (CMA) representing virtually all major manufacturers with plants in California, has a vital interest in water quality legislation. The CMA has supported and will sup- port all legislative efforts necessary to eliminate pollution. The following com- ments are divided into two parts, those which refer to bills as they are now before the committee and those which refer to areas where administration of existing law would seem to call for some Congressional clarification that might eventually be embodied in one of the subject bills. I COMMENTS ON 5. 2760, H.R. 15906 AND HR. 15907 In these bills as written, CMA desires to comment upon only one general aspect: control of shore establishments. Our fundamenctal po4nt is that we believe the controls authorized should be related to the problem which is under discus- Sion: spillages. Those proposed extend much, much further. Under S. 2760 as it passed the Senate, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized control of any dis- charge to navigable waters which contains any oil materials whatsoever. Since oil materials are present throughout our industrial civilization, the authority would apply to virtually all discharges to public waters including most public sewage discharges. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations governing all such discharges and to direct cleanup. H.R. 15906 would extend similar authority to amelioration of the effects of all matter discharged to navigable waters. On the basis of past performance, we feel sure that the effect of the bill will be to single out oil, and every discharge which contains any oil whatsoever and remove it from state jurisdiction wherever navigable waters go. This effect seems certain from the past record of how the Secretary of the Interior has interpreted his authority in the area of water quality controL Speaking bluntly, we fear that this authority would most likely be used against the manufacturing com- munity. We can understand the case for more effective action against spillages, but we strongly object to superseding the system of state controls, based upon feder- ally approved water quality standards, which is now just getting well estab- lished. As a suggestion, the authority granted could be directed against the basic pi~oblem cited, spillages, by excluding secretarial action with respect to any dis- charge which fails to lower the quality of the receiving waters below some reasonable standard. An amendment to accomplish this intent might be stated: "Action under this section is excluded in any case where: (a) the discharge does not cause the quality of the receiving waters to be de- graded below the standards established under Section 10 of Public Law 660; (b) the receiving waters do not have standards established under Section 10 of Public Law 660, and the discharge does not cause the appearance of visible oil or grease on or in the receiving waters or on the bottom, the shore, rocks, channel banks or structures." We do not hold any particular brief for the general standard cited in (b) above. It is quoted from a typical standard established in industrial waters in Califor- nia, that for harbors in Los Angeles county. To adopt an amendment such as the foregoing would give full authority to attack the problem of spillages, while not superseding the established program of state control of routine discharges. If it is desired to include "all matter" under the law, then it would seem appropriate to define spillage in the law in some such language as that used on Page 15 of the Oil Pollution Report to the President (where it cites the nature of changes needed in present law) : . . . "discharges of pollutants which rep- resent a substantial and imminent danger to health and welfare . . ." PAGENO="0262" 254 II COMMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING LAW The Water Quality Act of 1905 was landmark legislation in every sense of the word, and, as passed, had the support of the CMA. We wish to comment briefly on two aspects of the implementation of this law. Among other things, the law provided for Secretarial approval of water quality standards for "coastal waters." Under HEW a definition of coastal waters was established which seemed in accord with the intent of Congress: "Those waters of the marginal sea which are seaward of the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters." When the FWPCA was moved to interior, this definition was superseded by one which included the same waters plus "all inland waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tides." We respectfully request that Congress make clear its intent in this matter, preferably by amending the law. The Secretary of the Interior has also interpreted his mandate to enhance the nation's water quality by issuing a guideline to the effect that the quality of all water, everywhere, must be at least maintained. Where an area is already developed, such a standard could normally be defended. Where it is desired to retain the virgin character of a wild river, this guideline also makes sense. For the great majority of other cases, it does not. Simply put, its effect would be to force almost all new development into areas already possessing industry and population. In areas where there are now well developed industry and population centers, the new plant or residential development coming in knows that its discharges which reach public waters will be controlled and treatment will be required, but can still be sure that discharges will be authorized. Similar development efforts going into an area where there is now very little population and industry will be faced with the requirement to meet far higher standards for their discharges to public waters than they would in a developed area. This would add more difficulty and, in many cases, could cause abandonment of such planned development. In response to a storm of criticism and some outright defiance, this guide line has been modified to provide for development where the Secretary of the Interior specifically approves each and every case in detail. This is still intolerable. Neither the statute nor the record makes clear what the intent of Congress is in this case. We respectfully request that the Congress provide guidance. CMA suggests that a reasonable approach would be for the state to notify the Secretary of cases where they will allow development to lower the existing water quality. If, within 90 days, the Secretary desires, he may call for hearings in the same manner provided in the law for cases where he disagrees with state standards. This would provide a safeguard against any true degradation while avoiding delay and routine Federal bureaucratic control of a state's internal development. AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, INC., 2 PAJ~K AvENUE, NEw YORK, N.Y., WASHINGTON OFFICE: 1042 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG., Washington, D. C., April 1.9, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: At your suggestion, the American Water Works Associa- tion, on behalf of more than 20,000 members concerned with improving water service to the public, is happy to comment on the provisions of HR. 15907, on which your Committee is conducting hearings. In general, we will comment on the sections of the bill related to the public water supply business in which AWWA has special competence. In addition, it should be pointed out that in a large and growing number of communities water supply and pollution control facilities are jointly administered, so that water utilities have a direct interest in the wastewater field. Generally, AWWA is in full accord with the intent and provisions of H.R. 15907. This bill includes some provisions for assuring competent managers and PAGENO="0263" 255 for financing of local utilities which AWWA policy strongly supports. We are fully in accord with the intent of provisions of this bill to stimulate construc- tion of water pollution control facilities and make available additional match- ing funds for such construction. We especially commend those provisions which require mandatory certification of wastewater operators, to provide the reser- voir of trained manpower so essential to obtain full efficiency of the more sophisticated treatment facilities which will be necessary to abate the pollution of streams and lakes in the United States. AWWA also favors the provision that the Federal Government take some steps to be sure that its funds are invested prudently and in such a manner that the utility can work toward a self-sustaining basis and provide a financial base which will allow the local entity to finance future expansion and assure itself of the ability to pay for the quality of management and operation neces- sary to improve service to the public. In fact AWWA has a policy (attached) which recommends that the operation, maintenance, and capital funds of the utility be treated as a "sacred fund" rather than being mixed with or made a part of the general fund operation. Many municipal utilities have had their earnings diverted to other uses so that funds for future expansion and con- struction were not available when their need became apparent. AWWA feels further that establishment of the wastewater operation as a community utility, like the water utility, will improve its image as a service organization, making it better able to sell adequate rates based on service rendered, thus increasing the ability of the local entity to meet future demands without the necessity of con- tinuing Federal support. As AWWA sees the intent of this bill, it is to assist the local entity with its backlog of needed construction, but it is even more important, we feel, that the legislation set the pattern for a healthy, financial condition of the local entity. If we can create, by this Federal support, a healthy industry it will be a most profitable investment for the Nation. If, however, the pattern is not set for such utility-type approach, it is our opinion that Congress will find it necessary to meet this crisis again and again in the future as citizens become accustomed to unrealistically low rates for the service rendered. AWWA also commends the provisions of the bill which provide for increased research and development and for training of wastewater utility personnel. Although many water pollution problems are open to apparent solution by provi- sion of simple, well-established techniques of primary treatment for both now and the future, we do not at this time have adequate data on the secondary treatment and tertiary treatment required in many parts of the country. Putting wastewater to beneficial use again is of primary interest in many areas of our country. We realize that much work has been started in these areas by the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Administration, but its continuation and accelera- tion are essential if we are to avoid spending the monies involved in this bill on treatment facilities which will not be adapta:ble to the problems of the future. Conventional secondary treatment in many cases is patently unable to meet the requirements of an expanding urban population and the residual pollution loads of the streams affected. The research and application grants that are envisioned in this law will be a valuable investment on the part of the Federal Government in that they promise that the capital funds necessary for pollution control will be spent wisely and on a planned basis to develop facilities that can be integrated without financial loss into plants of tomorrow. We wish to suggest that the 5,000 investor-owned water utilities in the United States (and the growing number of investor-owned wastewater utilities) should be considered in this program and offered some of the research advantages and assistance in meeting new criteria that are offered to publicly owned utilities. To do this, we would suggest that the provisions of SectiOn 6 paragraph (d) of the bill make the investor-owned water or wastewater utility eligible for re- search and demonstration grants and that assistance to these agencies in terms of tax concessions in areas of water pollution control be considered. We are indeed happy to see this move toward a comprehensive approach to the management, financing, and technical aspects of the problem considered in a single bill. Members of AWWA have long advocated that the Federal grant pro- gram provide means by which the capital obligations issued by a local entity, through revenue bonds or general obligation bonds, be enhanced by a Govern- mont guarantee or by long-term Government loans that would improve the ability of the local entity to sell the maximum amount of revenue bonds at the lowest interest rate for construction of these needed facilities. We would subscribe PAGENO="0264" 256 basically to the approach which is taken with HUD's Housing Assistance Ad- ministration, whereby the bonds of the local entity are guaranteed by the Fed- eral Government over and above the maximum local issues which can be mar- keted at reasonable interest rates. We cannot agree, however, that the measures proposed in Section 2 and especially the provisions of Section (f) (3), whereby the tax exemption status of a local issue affected by Federal grant under this law- is removed, will be helpful in achieving the purpose of the bill. Such action will, we believe, confuse the financial picture at the local level and result in some in- crease in the interest rates even on other tax-exempt issues. This provision of the Act also will have the net result of reducing the amount of grant available to the local utility, inasmuch as it will have to pay higher interest rates on the balance of the issue not always entirely offset by the interest rebate provided for under Section (f) (1) (B). The use of a rebate based on the average interest rate of outstanding marketable obligations of the United States will not take into consideration the variations in credit ratings among local entities. A city with Class AA bonds will receive the same interest rate as a city with Class B bond so the Class AA city will be penalized and the Class B city will receive a better interest rate than it deserves. The restriction in this para- graph will not allow a reduction greater than one-fourth--that is 11/2 points in the case of a 6-percent bond-which could impose an added penalty on a local entity with adequate financial resources. When the cost of administration of what must be an extremely complex fund- ing and refunding operation by the Federal Government in payment of these interest rebates is taken into consideration, it is difficult for us to see how either the Federal Government or the local entity will profit. In fact, the confusion and uncertainty that will result from the application of this type of rule will, we are sure, tend to be a deterrent to the program as a whole and become unduly expensive to the local entity. Many utilities will undoubtedly be tempted to defer action as the possibility of complications in other financial arrangements are faced, and will seek as- surance that future tax-exempt financing will not be adversely affected or, if it is, that some relief from this requirement can be obtained. We feel it will be better under these conditions to accept a somewhat smaller grant in connection with Government-guaranteed tax-exempt bonds and preserve our present finan- cial status. Cordially, HENRY J. GRAESER, President. FINANCING AND RATES A STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON JAN. 25, 1965 AWWA believes that the interests of the public and of individual customers of water supply systems serving the public can be served best by self-sustained, utility-type enterprises, adequately financed, and with rates to the public and customers based on sound engineering and economic principles designed to avoid dIscrimination between classes of, or individual, customers. IDEAL STANDARDS To this end, AWWA establishes, as an ideal toward which each water supply utility should strive, the standards set out in the paragraphs that follow: 1. Each water supply utility serving the public should deliver w-ater meeting, as a minimum, the USPHS Drinking Water Standards, adequate in quantity for all sanitation and other domestic use, safe and desirable for industrial and corn- mercial use, and adequate for fire protection service. Its services should be on an uninterrupted basis with a minimum of fluctua- tions in pressure. In addition to meeting USPHS standards, the water furnished should be as free of objectional taste and odor, color, turbidity, and staining elements, an(l as noncorrosive and practicable under the local conditions. 2. Such a water supply utility should receive sufficient gross revenue from those using the service to enable it to pay all operating and maintenance ex- penses, all fixed charges on capital investment, employ and compensate trained and competent personnel for operating and maintenance functions, and have sufficient funds to develop and perpetuate its system in accordance with sound technical and economic principles. PAGENO="0265" 257 3. Each water supply utility serving the public, if owned or operated by a municipality or other governmental entity or agency, should have its funds niaintained in separate accounts from those of other municipal or governmental agencies or functions and not diverted to uses unrelated to the public water supply. Reasonable payments in lieu of taxes or for services rendered may be made. 4. Each water supply utility serving the public should adopt a system of accounting based on sound and recognized accounting principles and conforming with the legally established system of accounting prescribed for it, if any. In the absence of such a legally prescribed system, it should be based upon the latest NARUC system for water utilities with such minor modifications as may be required to adapt that system to the circumstances of the particular situation. 5. Each water supply utility serving the public should recommend or establish rate schedules which are designed to apportion equitably the total cost of water service among all classes of customers and types of service. 6. Each water supply utility serving the public should base its charges on metered consumption of water and such fixed charges as are required. Rates may also include charges based on demand, load factors, fire use, peak rates of use, seasonal use, and similar items. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. (Bizz) JOHNSON OF CALIFORNIA, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN SUPPORT OF S. 2760, H.R. 15906 AND H.R. 15907, APRIL 23, 1968, HON. GEORGE H. FALLON, CHAIRMAN Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of this committee for allowing me to submit these brief remarks on the water pollution control legislation on which we will be receiving testimony today. I am pleased to have taken part in the fine work that this committee has been doing. We all share the same desire to do everything possible to end the pollution of this Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes. Our water resources are far too valuable to be wasted and despoiled when we have the means at hand to prevent such a catastrophe. The State of California and the Second Congressional District have a tre- mendous stake in the far-reaching national water pollution control program that is now underway. Vast areas of California are short of water for all uses- municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational. The California Water Plan is evidence of the importance of water to the State and its commitment to the campaign for clean water. But maximum benefits require quality protection. California shares problems of water quality and waste disposal and treatment with many parts of the country; however, we are also faced with water resource problems unique to California-such as San Francisco Bay and Delta, and Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe, one of the clearest and deepest fresh water lakes in the world, is being threatened by the prolonged discharge of sewage from the local public utility district. We cannot and should not allow a priceless natural resource with such rare and unspoiled beauty to become carelessly and irreparably fouled. I would hope that the States of California and Nevada will reach a timely agree- nient on a strong and effective Lake Tahoe bi-state compact to insure that the Lake's purity and natural beauty will be preserved. I intend to press for con- gressional conent to such a compact, and will extend every effort to that end. The Nation's other natural lakes are similarly threatened with ruination by municipal sewage, industrial wastes, runoff from animal feedlots, irrigation run- off, and pollution from other sources that pours into their waters and accelerates their normal aging process. These pollutants cause an over-growth of rank vege- tation that chokes the lakes, smothering fish, restricting navigation and rec- reation, and often hampering the intake of public water supplies. S. 2760 would direct a stepped-up research and demonstration effort that would demonstrate new techniques for controlling pollution. It would further the efforts to preserve Lake Tahoe and to restore Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, and other polluted lakes, large and small. The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 authorized $3.4 billion over a period of four years for grants to help communities to build the waste treatment plants necessary to meet the high degree of water quality that is being called for in the water quality standards for the interstate waterways of all States. For this current fiscal year, the Congress has appropriated an amount of only $203 mil- PAGENO="0266" 258 lion, the budget request, as compared to an authorization of $450 million. The fiscal year 1.909 budget request is $225 million, as compared to the authorized amount of $700 million. What this means for California is that the State's share of the Federal grant money will be substantially reduced. California's prospective allocation under the full authorization, $35,278,600, was reduced to $13,912,000 under the current appropriation-less than 40 percent of the amount we had hoped to receive. In fiscal year 1969, California will be eligible for only $15,814,200 under the Presi- (lent's budget request, as compared to the $56,895,300 we could have received under the full authorization. In my own Second Congressional District, the need for funds for waste treat- ment works construction continues, in part, because of the lack of Federal money. As of March 31 of this year, there were a total of 17 Second District projects pending which totaled over $10 million in eligible costs and for which more than $5 million is requested in Federal funds. The nationwide program will lose the momentum we have generated if waste treatment plant funding is not intensified. It is for this reason that I support the enactment of the "Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968" which provides for an alternate approach to financing the Federal share of the cost of constructive waste treatment works. Under this approach, the Federal Government could enter into long-term contract commitments to make principal and interest pay- ments to State and local bodies or their designees to meet the construction costs of these plants. The Second District of California had received, as of March 31, 1968, Federal grant assistance totaling $5,123,598 to aid in construction of 30 projects costing a total of $17,814,051 (eligible costs). In addition to the financial assistance pro- vided to the Second District by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra- tion, we have also received financial aid for waste treatment facilities from the Department of Agriculture's program of assistance to rural areas (Farmer's Home Administration) and the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce. Last month, the mammoth oil spill from the tanker OCEAN EAGLE, in San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico, served to dramatize once again the need for the Congress to take immediate action to protect our waters and shorelines from devastating oil discharges. This accident occurred off the cost of Puerto Rico. Our own California coastline is by no means free from the threat of damage by oil. In a recent year (1960), there were 58 reported oil spills from vessels, shore installations, and unknown sources in San Francisco Bay. For the same year, 175 such spills were reported for the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, and 125 for San Diego Bay. Al- though none of these spills reached the huge proportions of the Puerto Rican spill this March, they have caused immeasurable damage to the precious estuarine and costal areas of California. Our coastal areas and waterways also need pro- tection from hazardous substances other than oil-chemicals, industrial wastes, fly ash, and other harmful pollutant-which may be discharged accidentally or otherwise and may inflict severe dama~res to shorelines and other property. The "Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Act of 1968" is an out- growth of the joint Interior-Transportation report to the President on their study of pollution by oil and other harmful substances. The 1e~tislation is designed to carry out many of the report's recommendations. It would extend the area in which the discharge of oil would be prohibited to the waters of the contiguous zone and would provide for the cleanup and would provide for the cleanup of large discharges of other pollutants. This Act directly complements the oil pollu- tion provisions of 5. 2760, and similar legislation sponsored in the House of Rep- resentatves, which greatly enhance the enforcement authority of the Federal Government and give the Secretary of the Interior added cleanup authority once a spill has occurred. 5. 2760 would also further our present efforts to develop techniques for the effective control and elimination of acid and other mine water pollution. I heartily endorse favorable action on these hills. Wastes from watercraft and related facilities are a serious form of water pollution, not yet properly controlled by existing law. Legislation pending before this Committee will take important steps to control pollution from these vessel sources, by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to set standards for the sewage discharged from boats in nevigable United States waters. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the hearings held by this committee during these next three days will focus attention on the seriousness of the water pollution problem that faces our Nation today, and the importance PAGENO="0267" 259 for us, as Members of the Congress, to provide the means with which we can continue our efforts to preserve and protect the quality of our Nation's waters. At this point, I would like to insert the remarks of a telegram I have received from Mr. W. R. Gianelli, Director of Water Resources of the State of California. Thank you. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., April 23, 1968. Hon. HAROLD T. "Bizz" JoHNsoN, Member of Congress, Honse Office Bnilding, Washington, D.C. Your letter of April 8, 1968, invited our comments on California's position before the House Public Works Committee hearings on water pollution April 23, 24, and 25. We understand the basic purpose of the hearings is to consider several bills on oil pollution control and grants for water pollution control demonstration projects (5. 2760, H.R. 15906, H.R. 15907). The State Water Resources Control Board has commended on the subject bills to Representative Don H. Clausen. Their comments include suggested technical revisions to those portions of the bills dealing with oil pollution and support lake eutrophication studies. We concur with the State Water Resources Control Board in supporf of the proposed provisions for demonstration grants in the field of correction of natural as well as man-made water quality problems in lakes. California is a very suitable recipient of such grants, especially for inimediate studies of eutrophication in Clear Lake and Lake Tahoe. California is already moving ahead in such studies. In addition to the immediate bills before the committee, we are concerned with several water quality and water pollution matters. The definition of coastal waters in Federal Water Quality Action of 1965 has been construed by the Department of the Interior for purposes of water quality standards to include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides under this definition the Federal Government includes the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. California submitted its standards for this area under protest of this definition. I strongly believe that the intrusion of Federal standards in Thikea is unwar- ranted and urge the definition of coastal waters for purposes of this act be restricted to saline water, which would exclude the Delta. WTe believe the principles behind the controversy of water quality standards in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta should be examined. The release of vast quantities of stored water to repel solidity intrusion for support of minor diversions must be con- sidered in relation to economic facts. Since California is an arid region, where water is definitely a limited resource, we must look beyond water quality standards to the water use functions they support. The functjon must represent the highest and best use of water. It must represent a reasonable and not wasteful use. It must be the most economical means of providing for the designated use the Federal water pollution control administration has totally failed to perceive these points of feasibility. The adoption of water quality standards along the lines currently being espoused by the FWPCA could wreak havoc with the State's water resources development program. Further, should the Federal government adopt standards which are inconi- patible with State policy, a serious breach in Federal-State water resource plan- ning and development relations could occur. The federal agencies would be com- pelled to plan for the development of water supplies to meet those standards. We would be forced to oppose the Federal plans because of the incompatibil- ity with the California water plan, and our planning policy for the optimum development for the water resources of the State. W. R. GIANi~u~I, Director of water resaurces. Mr. MCCARTHY. That concludes our hearing for today. The corn- mittee stands adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 5 :10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 24, 1968.) PAGENO="0268" PAGENO="0269" FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS-1968 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, C0MMIrrEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:43 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public Works Committee will please come to order to meet in open session continuing public hearings on H.R. 15906, and H.R. 15907, by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Blatnik, and sundry bills, about two dozen of them, on very important aspects of water pollution programs. GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER WELCOMED We are certainly privileged again, and of course we feel honored and very pleased, to have the distinguished Governor of the State of New York with us this morning as a lead-off witness. Governor, I would like again to say publicly what I have said privately many times, that certainly the Chair personally, and I know the committee, feels an obligation with a great sense of gratitude for the leadership you have given on the State level, which far too long was one of our weakest spots. With the legislation in which Congress authorized States to take the initiative in establishing standards on a joint effort with the Secretary of Interior, the States are moving along admirably and most encouragingly in this very difficult field. There is nothing less than enormous all-out joint effort across the board following the Federal Government, the State governments, cer- tainly the municipalities, large and small, and may I again repeat that it has been the municipalities that have certainly carried a major share of the burden of what is now thoroughly a national program. These municipalities have carried the major burden and is measured in terms of physical output and physical effort. I believe much of your testimony this morning will be addressed in that area. Governor, you are recognized to open the hearings this morning. Mr. CLEVELAND. On behalf of the minority, we would like to wel- come Governor Rockefeller. He has appeared before this committee before, and he has written a distinguished record in connection with this very serious problem of the abatement of water pollution. (261) PAGENO="0270" 262 The way I would like to put it, Governor, I know you will not object to the way I put it, is that New York is doing almost as good a job as New Hampshire! I know the Governor will not mind that, because he spent 4 years in New Hampshire at Dartmouth College. The point I want tO make is simply that the leadership the Gov- ernor has brought on a national level, through his very dramatic steps which have been taken in New York, has really helped us here at the national level in fighting this particular battle. Mr. BLATNIK. Governor Rockefeller. THE `~WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF i968~' STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HOLLIS INGRAHAM, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH; JOSEPH H. MURPHY, COMMIS- SIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE; AND RONALD W. PEDER. SEN, PROGRAM ASSOCIATE, EXEGUTIVE CHAMBER, STATE OF NEW YORK Governor ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cleveland, and gentle- men: I appreciate what was said, Mr. Chairman, about New Hamp- shire. I was only sorry they did not recognize it 4 years ago. [Laughter.] May I say that I have with me the Commissioner of Health, Dr. Hollis Ingraham, on my right; the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, Mr. Murphy, also on my right; and Mr. Ronald Pedersen, a member of my staff sitting with me on my left. I would like to say that the citizens of the State of New York, Mr. Chairman, are very grateful to you and to the members of your coin- mittee for the leadership in this field, which has resulted in our being able to undertake a program of major significance to the future of the State. And so it is in that spirit of gratitude and appreciation that I am delighted to have the opportunity of being here again before you, on your invitation, to testify on H.R. 15907, the proposed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. If I may go through a little of this material I have, and then go informally to any questions. This subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution have been greatly responsible for the increased national awareness of the need to take prompt and comprehensive action to combat water pollution. CONTRACT APPROACH CONSTRUCTIVE A year ago, when I appeared before this subcommittee, I pointed out that recommended appropriation of fiscal 1968 was only 55 per- cent of the authorization, and, in my opinion, woefully inadequate. At that time I also recognized, however, the difficult fiscal situation faced by the Federal Government. I observed that consideration might therefore be given to new mechanisms which would make it possible for the Federal Gove~n- ment to finance its share of constructing sewage treatment plants at a more rapid rate. PAGENO="0271" 263 H.R Th90'T provides for such a mechanism. The bill provides that the Federal Government, in addition to continuing the basic grant program, can contract with State and local agencies for the Federal share of construction costs and pay over a period of the public bodies principal and interest payments amount- ing to the Federal share of the bonds sold by public agencies to finance sewage plant construction. The bill also provides for a Federal guarantee of bonds covering the State or local share of the treatment facilities. In view of demands on Federal revenues at this time, a debt service approach is a creative way for the Federal Government to more quickly meet its commitment to clean waters before pollution over- whelms us. BILL~S VALUE ERODED BY CERTAIN PROVISIONS The potential value of this legislation, however, is eroded unneces- sarily and unwisely, in my opinion, by certain provisions. These provisions could severely penalize a State such as New York, which has underway a program to solve the problem as quickly as possible. I would like to focus on four major provisions which I feel can cause serious concern: First, the requirement that, under debt service contracts, the inter- est on the State and municipal bonds be subject to Federal taxation. Second, the requirement that there be "user charges" for a project to be eligible for the Federal debt service program. Third, the limitation under the debt service program of 10 percent per State. Fourth, the elimination of the prefinancing provision so that it would not apply to either the existing program or the new debt service mechanism. Now if I could take these up in detail. TAXABLE STATUS OF BONDS 1. The taxable status of State and local bonds. tinder the pro- posed new debt service program, interest from the bonds issued by local or State agencies to finance the construction of sewage treat- ment plants would be taxable. This in my opinion is neither necessary nor desirable. One of the arguments apparently advanced in favor of taxing municipal sewer facility bonds seems to relate to the present munici- pal bond market. Additional tax-exempt bonds, according to this argument, would worsen market conditions and further increase in- terest rates. . Problems which may exist in connection with the total municipal bond market, however, are much more closely related to the general state of the economy than to the question of the tax exemption for such bonds. In this connection, I would like to submit for the record data from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce on proceeds from new securities and average yields since 1960. (The information referred to follows:) PAGENO="0272" 264 GROSS PROCEEDS FROM NEW SECURITIES OFFERE D FOR CASH IN THE UNITED ST ATES 1 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Grand total 25,468 Corporate2 8,081 Norcorporate 17,387 U.S. Government 7,906 Federal agency 1,672 State and municipal 7,230 Foreign governments 395 International 110 Nonprofit institutions 74 Municipal indtustiral development bonds 41 Corporate as percent of grand total 31. 7 U.S. Government as percent of grand total 31. 0 State and municipality as percent of grant totaL 38. 4 Municipal industrials as percent of grant totaL - . 16 Municipal industrials as percent of State and municipalities . 57 In millions of dollars 31,773 28,222 30,252 34,030 37,836 42,502 65,670 9,426 22,347 9,016 10,872 10,865 13,720 19,206 19,380 23,165 24,116 15,561 26,941 21,954 43,716 12,253 1,448 8,345 220 16 66 8,590 7,213 10,656 9,348 1,188 1,168 1,295 2,731 8, 558 10, 107 10, 544 11, 148 554 772 480 460 183 0 153 201 133 120 126 228 8,231 6,806 11, 089 513 85 217 19,431 8,180 14, 288 1,281 380 155 72 84 133 193 212 504 1,390 PERCENT 29. 7 38. 6 26. 3 . 23 . 86 31. 9 35. 9 31. 9 36. 3 30. 4 23. 8 31. 3 24. 7 30. 3 33. 4 31. 0 29. 5 . 30 . 44 . 57 . 56 . 98 1. 32 1. 83 1. 90 36. 6 19. 4 26. 1 1. 19 4. 55 33. 4 29. 6 21. 8 2. 12 9. 73 1 Includes corporate and noncorporate bonds. Excludes preferred and common stock. 2 Breakdown by industry is available. Source:Statistical Bulletin; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and tabulations by Investment Bankers Association. PERCENT YIELDS ON NEW BONDS OFFERED FOR CASH IN THE UNITED STATES, 1960-67 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967' Domestic corporate bonds average 4. 73 4. 66 4. 62 4. 50 4. 57 4. 64 5. 34 5. 82 Domestic municipal bonds (bond buyers 20 bonds) 3. 51 3. 46 3. 14 3. 18 3. 20 3. 28 3. 83 3. 96 U.S. Government bonds 4. 01 3. 90 3. 95 4. 00 4. 15 4. 21 4. 66 4. 85 `Unweighted average of monthly averages. Source: Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1968; Business Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1965 edition. Governor ROCKEFELLER. The data indicate that the volume of taxable bonds sold has increased at a more rapid rate than the sales of tax-exempt bonds, and that the interest on tax-exempt bonds has not increased as rapidly as the interest rate on corporate taxable bonds. Thus, it w-ould appear that eliminating the present tax exemption for clearly public purpose bonds-such as those for pollution abate- ment purposes-is not really reaching the basic factors affecting municipal bond market conditions. Furthermore, the marketability of municipal bonds would be jeopardized if the tax exemption were removed. Smaller communities in particular might well be seriously affected, as well as the bonds of such agencies as the New York Pure Waters Authority, created at my recommendation in 1967 to assist munici- palities finance and construct sewage systems and treatment facilities. Federal legislation removing the option for tax-exempt bonds would threaten progress of the entire water pollution abatement program. I would like to add parenthetically if I may, Mr. Chairman, that eliminating the tax-exempt feature of State and municipal bonds has been an objective of the Treasury Department for some 20 years PAGENO="0273" 265 for reasons which I understand, but do not agree with. And I caimot help but feel, if I can say so very strongly, that there is in this bill an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent or the foot in the door with establishing the principle that tax exemption can be elimi- nated. I do not t.hink this is the place, if I may be so bold as to say, to try and do it under a program which is of such tremendous im- portance, which has been given so much support by the Congress. I do not think this is the place to debate and undertake a new concept in the whole area of tax-exempt bonds. I would like also to say that State and local governments are having a very tough time as it is getting the money to finance needed facilities and activities. If we want to preserve government close to the people and the strength of our Federal system, we have got to find ways that funds can be put in the hands of local governments so that they can take initiative. In our own State, the Federal Government collects 68 percent of all the taxes; the State collects 14 percent of all the taxes that are collected; and the local government, 18 percent. We have gone a long way on the 14 percent. One of the features tl~at has been useful to us is the tax-exempt bonds which makes it possible for us have a certain advantage. A second reason for the proposed elimination of tax exemption seems to stem from the contention that the amount of Federal tax revenue derived from the interest earned on taxable municipal bonds would be greater than the cost of the proposed subsidy to meet the difference between the interest rate for a tax-exempt and a taxable bond. In other words, Treasury would make money out of this proposed program as it is presently presented in this legislation. It would get more money back from the taxes on the bonds sold than they would put out in paying the differential. Yet, the possible advantage of a relatively minor improvement in Federal revenues is far outweighed by the far-reaching ramifications of this proposal to eliminate the tax exemption. Such action would seriously curtail the ability of State and local governments to meet their problems. If this should occur, there might well be increased demands on the Federal Government to provide funds to meet problems which State and local governments are now working to solve, and thus negate the improvement in Federal revenues. Most importantly, taxation of bonds for a clearly public purpose such as water treatment facility construction would impair the long- standing precedent of tax immunity which State and local bonds have traditionally enjoyed. Since the apparent two reasons for this drastic change in public policy seem to have little merit, at least from my point of view, I am deeply concerned that the main reason for inclusion of this provision in a bill to further meet pollution abatement needs is really an initial attempt to erode the traditional immunity from Federal taxation of the obligations of the States or their subdivisions. A number of bills before Congress and a proposed Treasury regu- 94-376 O-68----18 PAGENO="0274" 266 lation wouTd deny an income tax exemption to the interest on indus- trial development bonds. I am aware that there have been abuses arising from the indis- criminate use of industrial development bonds. I support appropriate action to prevent these abuses. I am strongly opposed, however, to any blanket denial of this ex- emption that could be applied indiscriminately to obligations that deeply affect the public interest. To deny this exemption would seriously curtail the potential for Federal-State-local cooperation and would go far toward denying to the States and their localities the flexibility needed to meet the prob- lems which confront them today. For example, should such action be taken, and be upheld by the courts, it is quite likely that a major program established this year in New York for dealing with the agonizing problems of the core city areas could be jeopardized. I refer to the creation of the Urban Development Corporation and the Urban, Development and Research Corporation, which have both just been passed by our legislature. Both contemplate using obligations which would assist the private sector of the economy to accomplish a vital public purpose-locating and expanding in core areas. I would like to make again, if I might, a parenthetical statement. We are facing problems of a magnitude today, particularly in our cities where some 75 percent of the population now reside in the metropolitan areas, which are beyond the financial capacity of govern- ment, whether it is Federal, State government, local, or all put to- gether, and therefore we have ~ot to find means of attracting private capital back into these areas. The use of tax-exempt bonds can be, and in my opinion is one of the major ways of cooperating with private enterprise to get them to undertake the necessary actions to solve some of the social problems of our communities. These proposals at the Federal level are also a threat to the continued tax exemption of obligations issued by States and their political subdi- visions to provide other facilities which deeply affect the public interest. I realize that neither of these problems is the direct concern of this Committee, but the proposed bill before you does raise the question of denying an interest exemption on bonds of the States or their political subdivisions-a question which has ramifications far beyond those of financing sewage treatment facilities. The proposed denial of a tax exemption in H.R. 15907 would be for an obligation which has a clear and undeniable public purpose-the construction of sewage treatment facilities to eliminate water pollu- tion. No less clear and undeniable, however, is our pressing and overdue obligation to eradicate-once and for all-the problems of city core areas. At a time when the Nation requires the maximum possible coopera- tion among governments at all levels, and the maximum possible con- tribution by the private sector of the economy, curtailing the fiscal ef- fectiveness of States and municipalities is an unwise course. The purpose of the Federal water pollution control program is to eliminate pollution. I agree that new steps may be needed at this time PAGENO="0275" 267 to permit the Federal Government to meet its share of the cost more quickly. A Federal program designed to achieve a specific functional purpose should not be used, however, as a vehicle to eliminate or test the pos- sibility of eliminating the tax exemption for municipal and State bonds-a drastic change in public policy. USER CHARGES 2. User charges. Under the proposed legislation, a municipality issuing bonds under a debt service contract must establish user charges sufficient to amortize construction costs, provide for operation and maintenance, and build a reserve for expansion and replacement. While I am not opposed to the principle of user charges-in fact I think there is a great deal of merit in the use of user charges-this provision concerns me for several reasons. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government to mandate the spe- cific way in which a local government should meet its commitment to pay for and operate a sewage treatment plant. User charges may not always be the most equitable or wisest way to support such projects. In some cases a combination of a user charge, assessments, and the property tax is most equitable and efficient. Local governments need flexibility in fiscal matters more than at any other time in history. I believe it unwise for Congress to restrict the financial flexibility of local government in this way. There is also a serious question whether the full cost of operating and replacing sewage treatment plants as well as their initial con- struction, as called for in the user charge proposal, should be borne directly and entirely by just the municipality concerned, regardless of the revenue source. Those who may benefit most from treatment facilities are not neces- sarily in the immediate community but are perhaps downstream, even in another State. The proposed bill seems to provide that the user charge also be suffi- cient to cover replacement and expansion needs of the plant. While the bill is not clear on this point, the concept must be treated carefully. New York law, for example, prohibits the use of reserve funds for expansion when the original system is paid for by benefit assessment. This theory is sound-those paying for present benefits should not also have to pay for the benefits of future generations. User charges sufficient to cover amortization, operation, and re- placement would be very substantial. They could be a major deterrent to a community seeking to enter into a contract with the Federal Gov- ernment, even though the community had other fiscal resources ade- quate to meet its commitments. In addition, the bill provides that the Secretary may waive the re- quirement for user charges "if such charges would not serve to im- prove the financial capability and efficiency of the waste treatment system." Th,is provision is not clear. I would like to comment that in general, the more discretion that is placed in the hands of administrators rather than clearly spelled out PAGENO="0276" 268 in the law by the Congress, the more confusion there is, the more delay there is, and the more maneuvering that goes on. Often the delay re- sulting from this kind of negotiation on an administrative basis, first through the regional office which takes maybe 6 months, then going to Washington for perhaps another 6 months, and then differences are balanced out, and by that time we have lost a year or so. The uncertainties in this kind of administrative judgment, I think, lead to confusion rather than to speed of action. Also I think there is some question as to principle. Even with clarification of the proposed legislation however, it seems to me that basic concepts are being jeopardized. The user charge provisions as a whole should be eliminated and re- placed by a general provision requiring the Secretary to obtain neces- sary assurance that the locality will meet its financial commitments. 3. Ten percent maximum debt service contracts per State. HI.R. 15907 provides that contracts in any one State in any 1 year shall not exceed 10 percent of the total amount available for contracts in that fiscal year. I am opposed to any ceiling which is arbitrary and not related to needs. Ceilings often tend to discriminate against those States in which needs are greatest. In other words, a small State can get 10 percent of the total, can go way beyond its actual percentage in terms of need; whereas a large State which has needs equal to or beyond the 10 percent cannot. I would like to give an illustration as to what effect this would have in New York State. While the bill does provide that any contract funds not obligated within a particular year shall be available in the next fiscal year with- out regard to the 10 percent per State limitation, this could delay the start of approved projects. The 10-percent limitation also raises a very practical question in the case of large sewage treatment plants. In New York City, one project alone is estimated to cost $220 mil- lion. Under the 10-percent limitation, New York State could receive in fiscal 1969 a contract allotment of $47.5 million. Under the grant program, New York could receive approximately $17 million. Thus, the total available to the State would be $64.5 mil- lion, but the Federal share of this one plant would be $121 million. The 10 percent per State ceiling should be removed. If there are to be limitations, however, they should be related to need and speed. 4. Prefinancing. In 1965 and again in 1966, I called for Federal encouragement of State and local action by authorizing Federal re- imbursement from future allocations if States and localities pre- financed the Federal share of the cost of constructing municipal sewage treatment plants. Your committee was most understanding and most responsive to this concept. H.R. 15907, however, eliminates this provision. It would not pro- vide for reimbursement for projects initiated after July 1, 1968. PAGENO="0277" 269 When Congress approved the prefinancing provision in 1966, it recognized that States and localities should not be penalized for dem- onstrating initiative. The proposed legislation would penalize the State of New York for adopting a pure waters program to quickly eliminate water pollution. And there are some four, five, or six other States which now have similar legislation before their legislative bodies. New York anticipates approval of $534 million worth of projects during the coming Federal fiscal year. We expect these projects to be eligible for the full 55-percent Federal share established by law. A 55-percent share of New York State's $534 million p~'ogram for Federal fiscal 1969 would be $294 million-42 percent of the total nationwide authorization of $700 million. Obviously, New York State could not realistically expect to receive 42 percent of the total authorization. In fiscal 1970, however, when the Federal authorization goes to $1 billion, New York State's construction program will decrease to $375 million. In 1971, with a Federal authorization of $1,250 million, New York's program needs are estimated at $325 million. In 1972, the last phase of New York's 6-year program, to clean up all the pollution of our waters, needs will further decrease to approximately $140 million. In other words, because the State of New York has acted to meet its needs now, its construction requirements are peaking in Federal fiscal 1969, well before the nationwide peak provided for by the au- thorizations enacted by Congress. Retention of the reimbursement provision will advance the national goal of abating pollution as quickly as possible and at the lowest cost possible. I say the lowest cost possible because construction costs are rising very rapidly. It is prudent fiscal management to meet the needs as quickly as possible. It is consistent with congressional intent to have the Federal Gov- ernment share in the cost of constructing approved sewage treatment works. It is essential that a prefinancing provision be included in this pend- ing legislation. Such a provision should apply to all projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for Federal assistance, whether or not such assistance is available at the time of approval. These then, gentlemen, are four major objections to H.R. 15907 in its present form. It is absolutely essential that they be corrected if the effort to eliminate water pollution is to progress as rapidly as possible. Efforts of States such as New York would be seriously jeopardized by provisions in this proposed bill. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE NEW YORK PURE WATERS PROGRAM Now if I may just give for one moment here a review of where we stand in New York so that you can see the effectiveness of your present program of encouraging State action on a rapid accelerated basis. New York State is achieving dramatic steps toward its goal to clean up all of its waters by 1972. The people's overwhelming approval by a 4-to-i mandate of the pure waters bond issue in 1965 is being vigor- ously implemented. PAGENO="0278" 270 As of April 1, we have in process 273 local sewage treatment works projects with a total cost of over $1 billion. An important reason for this rapid progress is that since 1962 New York has had a program of 100-percent State aid for locally initiated comprehensive sewage planning studies on an areawide basis. In addition, the State is providing one-third of the cost of operat- ing and maintaining sewage treatment plants. To spur industry to construct treatment facilitates, we grant real property tax exemptions and a 1-year depreciation writeoff. We have streamlined our enforcement machinery-98 percent of all pollution is under abatement, schedules. Either through voluntary agreements or legally enforceable orders, construction timetables es- tablish dates for operation of required treatment works by our dead- line in 1972. We have established model standards of water quality. The Secre- tary of the Interior has approved standards~ for each of our river basins. In fact, New York was among the first States to have its stand- ards approved. We are installing a statewide network of automatic water quality monitors to give a record of the water quality four times every hour. When pollution exceeds the standard, immediate action can be taken. Two pilot monitors have been in operation for over a year. On March 30, contracts were let for installation of 10 additional monitors. We have established the New York State Pure Waters Authority to assist municipalities in establishing sewage treatment and solid waste disposal facilities. It can help finance, mobilize scarce technical skills, and effectuate areawide service systems. And finally, we are engaged in a program of water pollution control research amounting to more than $500,000 annually. In short, New York is carrying out the most active, comprehensive water pollution control program in the Nation. Such initiative and effort and that of other States must be stimu- lated, not threatened or undermined. Unwise changes in Federal policy could threaten the momentum and capability of State and local governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, to carry out effective programs to end water pollution. This has been the constant objective of this committee and the leadership of this committee and the Congress, and in my opinion has resulted in the effective work that is now being done nationwide. Thank you very much sir. GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER'S TESTIMONY COMPLIMENTED Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, ~Governor, for a very thought-provoking~ statement, especially as relates to the financing area. You say it so modestly to us that it is not our primary specialty at all. But we do have talent and experts in this field that we have to call upon to help us. Your objections to it are very well reasoned, very persuasive, I can understand that. . I merely say at the outset that I do not expect much difficulty in working out a more flexible arrangement which we can maintain, the PAGENO="0279" 271 prefinancii-ig aspect, in which you were instrumental in recommend- ing to this committee, which was incorporated into Federal law in recent amendments; and at the same time perhaps utilizing the bond- ing program, contracting procedures, recommended by the Secretary. I think the Secretary's or the administration's bill in trying to provide fOr a Federal guarantee of the entire bond, I think its intent is good. Governor ROCKEFELLER. I do, too. Mr. BLATNIK. As I understand it, that is their intent, to improve the capability or to minimize the difficulties the municipalities would have of getting such bonds and working up such arrangements; while the Secretary feels that the use of taxable rather than taxexempt bonds would also be significantly cheaper for the Federal Government, even with the interest subsidy. You feel, however, that the possible advantage of a relatively minor improvement in Federal revenues, as you state, would be far out- weighed by the impediments and difficulties that this proposal would impose on relationships in financing the program between the Federal Government and the States. So I assure you that your testimony and your reasons on the financ- ing will be given very serious consideration. We shall mouth this over and digest it as we get into executive session and seek other points of view on that particular aspect. I was. particularly pleased on the latter point of your testimony on the progress made in your State, which has already peaked on a con- struction program-peaked way ahead of most States in the country, and your monitoring program and many other areas. Congressman Jones is very familiar with it. I have more questions, but in the interest of time-and I know your schedule is a heavy one and you are to leave soon for other commit- ments-may we begin, if we can keep our questions rather to the point, and I would like to give every one an opportunity. We will start at the right. Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES. Governor, it is a pleasure to have you once again. I certainly want to commend you and your administration in taking the leadership that you have displayed in making a real attack on an enormous problem. It has spilled over throughout the country, and there is new enthusiasm on behalf of the people being engaged in cleaning up our streams. I was particularly impressed with your comments on the bonding arrangements. I can very well recall the community in your State, the Webster community, and they have just a small village, and they were able to construct facilities and contracts with Xerox Corp., and they made a splendid arrangement. It has been observed by communi- ties throughout the country. Under the proposal as you have discussed, the village would lose their capabilities, having engaged in that type of contract were the tax exemption feature removed. And it seems to me that the observa- tion you have made certainly is worthy of continuation as they have in the past. PAGENO="0280" 272 I think that probably we would be making a mistake in trying to tinker with the tax laws in an abatement program. It is always goo~ and_it-is_-refreshing to know that we have the splendid leadership of you and your administration. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Kluczynski. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I am sure that the great Governor has all the answers at his fingertips. It is always a pleasure to have the Governor from the great State of New York appear before this committee. Your testimony will be very helpful to the committee when we sit down and try to write this bill. Again I want to say it is a pleasure to have you before us again. You are doing a wonderful job, and keep up your good work. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Governor, we are very grateful for your testimony. I think you have put your finger on at least one aspect of this legis- lation, although it was brought up here by Secretary of Interior as a water pollution abatement bill, there is a haunting suspicion that at least some sections of it were written by the Treasury Department. Some people on this side of the aisle have long felt that one of the routes, and there are many routes, toward achieving our objectives is to give private industry tax credit or a substaifrial deduction inso- far as they build these facilities. And I fail to see that in the bill, but perhaps in executive session we can suggest it. Another thing that interests me, Governor, is many States have a legal limit in the amount of interest that they can pay on their obli- gations. And as I understand it, New York is 5 percent. Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right. Mr. CLEVELAND. Under this legislation then you would undoubtedly be unable to even participate because surely New York State, as good as your credit is in the current bond market, if the tax-exempt feature was removed, you would probably have to pay a good deal more than 5 percent to borrow money? Governor ROCKEFELLER. We would have to get an amendment from the legislature, which I think we could get to be perfectly frank. The law was just amended for New York City, which had to go for a higher rate even on the tax-exempt bonds. I think it is a very good point. Mr. CLEVELAND. And another thing that I note, in conclusion, your insistence on user charges as the method of financing the local level. I believe that the user charge would not be a tax deduction to the average citizen; whereas if the method of financing were a tax to local municipal authority, this would be a tax exemption. So once again we find the fine hand of the Treasury in Mr. Udall's bill. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Very good point. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. No questions. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Dorn. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I do want to com- mend the distinguished Governor for his contribution in our delibera- PAGENO="0281" 273 tions here over the years. He has been an outstanding leader in this field and in the entire Nation. We are grateful, and I am sure I speak on behalf: of `the members of this committee, when I express my deep appreciation to you for your help to us and for the country in this very critical field. Governor ROCKEFELLER. You are very generous. Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. GROVER. Mr. Cramer, thank you for yielding. Governor, some 2 years ago you provided the leadership which led us to a great breakthrough in this field. Congressman McEwen and I had the privilege of working with you in our New York State Legis- lature in other landmark legislation-and we look forward to a con- tinuing relationship. Thank you, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I am delighted to see you here, Governor, to comment on this subject and others. You are always most welcome, and cer- tainly being very helpful to us by pointing out some of the weaknesses of the approach being made, some of which we have been discussing for a few days. `There are two or three fields where this plows new ground as far as the Federal Government. You put your finger on one of them, that is, taking away of the tax exemption, and it is a condition for getting Federation money. I know of no precedent for that; do you? Governor ROCKEFELLER. No. Mr. CRAMER. Secretary Tidall could not think of one yesterday. Of course-and I say this to the gentleman from New Hampshire-maybe we will have Treasury up later. Maybe they know some precedents. I do not know of any precedents. Do you, Governor? Governor ROCKEFELLER. No. COST OF CONTRACT PROGRAM Mr. CRAMER. Second, the basic concept of bond issue deficit finan- cing by the Federal Government for public works purposes, I think, is something that we are going to have to examine extremely carefully. Of course it `has the interesting result of not coming under `the debt limit, so I guess the Treasury did have a fine hand in this matter after all. I can understand the desire to maybe accomplish that through this sort of a procedure. However, when we look at the figures in terms of actual construction, it leads me to ask the question: Is this the intel- ligent approach for the Federal Government to start on a deficit finan- cing bond issue approach, having the alternative of tax increases or direct appropriations? And looking at the issues, according to the testimony yesterday, under this bill in a 3-year period the Federal share would be about $2.275 billion. Of course the Federal Government also guarantees the local share, is that not the way you understand the bill? Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right. PAGENO="0282" 274 Mr. CRAMER. And we received some additional interesting informa- tion yesterday that the authorization supposedly to be limited to $2.2 billion did not include the interest, which would be about another 120 percent Or so, meaning about $2.5 billion more-not construction money-but carrying charge money. That was the testimony of the Secretary and the Bureau of the Budget. Governor ROCKEFELLER. I did not realize that. Mr. CRAMER. So actually it did not include the $900 million for the 3-year interest subsidy. So there are just a few oversights as it relates to how much money that is really included in this bill. And I did not know whether you realized or appreciated it. We are not talking about $2.2 billion authorization. We are talking about $2.2 billion, plus the $2.5 billion interest, plus $900 million for interest subsidies. So we are actually talking about $5.8 billion-nearly $6 billion of authorization in this bill that on the surface appears to be $2.2 billion. And out of that $6 billion, plus the $2 billion guarantee which is added in, the Federal Government under this bill for 3 years could be responsible for $8 billion. What bothers me is what construction do we get out of it? What actual building do we get out of it? So far as the Federal share is concerned, we get $2.2 billion. I just wonder if under those cir- cumstances it is really intelligent to go into this type of program, which of course will be expanded and long range and so forth. This is just a start, a drop in the bucket. And I wonder if it is really intel- ligent to take that approach as compared to direct appropriation ap- proach, when we consider what construction results we get. We also have a problem of balancing the budget. Would you care to comment on the alternative approaches? EFFECTS OF THE BOND APPROACH Governor ROCKEFELLER. If I could, I would like to comment on one of the statements you made in the beginning, that is the Federal Gov- ernment going into bond financing as against annual appropriation and the inflationary pressure of that, because it is outside the debt limit. I think it should be pointed out that when the Federal Government runs a deficit and sells Treasury notes that has maximum inflationary pressures, because it creates a credit base and is not taking savings from private individuals, but is handling this operation with the banks; and therefore, this is the most inflationary possible method of financing as far as the country as a whole is concerned. When bonds are sold by State or municipalities, they are sold to private buyers; and it takes savings which would be spent for some other purpose, so that it is much less inflationary than running a large deficit. I think myself that if the Federal Government, either through the guarantee or through interest and amortization payments as a concept, I think it is imaginative, I think it would be far less inflationary than a comparable amount spent out of a straight deficit of the Federal Government. PAGENO="0283" 275 Now, you get in some other questions there, which I was not aware* of, that this was not limited to the $2.5 billion, but that the interest was not included and something else was not included, and you could go up to $8 billion. This I was not aware of. I might say that I think Treasury, because we have been discussing it `with them and so forth, is opposed to the concept of prefinancing. We talked to them about the possibility of using pre-financing in con- nection with mass transportation projects and model cities projects, so that we ?ould go on with some of these jobs, which at the moment are really just promises. And they have finally come to the conclusion that they are opposed to prefinancing. This leaves much wider latitude in the local government. It re- moves Federal control over the pace and speed and the rest of it in approval of projects, except in principle. And I think really it gets back to what the chairman said that Treasury feels that it would be considerably cheaper to the Govern- ment as a whole to use this method of taxable bonds with `the Federal paying the difference in the interest rate. I think probably there is no question but that is true. It would be cheaper for the Government as a whole; but it puts the control in the Federal Government. It removes the flexibility of independent action by local govern- ment, and I think strikes a very serious blow at the whole concept of the federal system, which is Federal, State, `and local shared responsi- bility with maximum initiative and ability to deal with local problems at the l9cal level. I think that to me is the most serious phase of this whole qluestion: Is the removal of this basic flexibility of local gov- ernment. Mr. CRAMER. I am very intrigued with your continued strong sup- port for State and local government responsibility. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Yes, sir. NO STATE ALLOCATION FORMULA Mr. CRAMER. And States' rights. And as evidence in this context, one aspect that disturbs me that I would like to have your comment on is: There is no allocation formula in this proposal as compared to the present law. Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. New York's guarantee, as you suggest, is $16 million or $17 million out of the $275 million appropriation-or $225 million, is it not, appropriation? New York gets, what did you say, $17 mil- lion? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Under the total action of the formula, it comes out to $17 million. Mr. CRAMER. But under this bill, the difference between what we appropriate and the $700 million, if they exceed the $700 million ceiling-and they do not have to if they do not want to-there is nothing mandatory in this as you read it, is there that they will be limitdd even to the $2.2 billion? Mr. PEDERSEN. No, I do not think so. That is not clear. Mr. CRAMER. So there is no limit really of $2.2 billion. But out of the difference of $225 million appropriation request and the $700 mu- PAGENO="0284" 276 lion ceiling, supposedly there is that $475 million for this bonding program, right? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Right. Mr. CRAMER. But New York has no guarantee of getting any por- tion of that under the bill as written? Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is exactly right. Mr. CRAMER. The only limitation at all is 10 percent maximum, which you obviously have reason to question coming from one of the largest States. AN OPEN-ENDED COMMITMENT Governor ROCKEFELLER. Of course it is a new concept really here where the Department of Interior would have the right to issue guar- antees. These would be obligations on the Congress over which, as I read the law, the Congress would have no control. For the first time you are just going in the opposite direction in the welfare programs, and you put a ceiling on aid to dependent children, the number of children, which is the first time since 1935 where these open ended arrangements have had a ceiling put on them, so in a sense this is in- consistent with the action taken in the welfare field where you are stopping open ended commitments and want to get a fixed obligation here. This is opening a new open end commitment and removing Con- gress' capacity to determine the amount for any one year to be spent. Mr. CRAMER. As a matter of fact the Treasury Department becomes so adamant to this approach that they just give us the grant pro- gram- Governor ROCKEFELLER. I think so. Mr. CRAMER. And they have no obligation to continue the grant pro- gram if they want to absorb the full $700 million for the bond issue program, as I read it. Governor ROCKEFELLER. It really gets down to this whole question of how much it is worth to them to get rid of tax-exempt bonds as a basic philosophy and concept. Mr. CRAMER. My Chairman has informed me that our time is up. I thank you very much, Governor. Governor ROCKEFELLER. May I just say one thing, Mr. Chairman- Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Governor ROCKEFELLER. -in relation to a remark that the Congress- man made. I believe in States' rights very strongly, but I also believe that in order to preserve them, States must assume their responsibilities. Mr. Cit~Ai~nrai. With that I agree, yes. Governor ROCKEFELLER. This proposed legislation wouTid prevent us very importantly from assuming our responsibilities. Mr. CRAMER. I was not taking issue with you. I was complimenting you. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0285" 277 NEW LEGISLATION AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRENGTHEN SMALLER COMMUNITIES Once again we appreciate your comments, Governor Rockefeller. One of the greatly growing problems as I see it in the country is this trend toward urbanization. And as a result, it has in effect created a source of brain drain in the rural communities of America to a point where some 70 percent of the people live on 1 percent of the land. Many of us are very concerned about this. And I am sure that you would share this concern. In this legislation I believe we have an opportunity to do some- thing about it. I think there is an opportunity for us to establish the kind of allocation so that local units of government can move for- ward in providing the type of sewage treatment facilities necessary in order to accommodate industry should industry want to decen- tralize. May I have your comments on this? Do you agree with what I am saying? Governor ROCKEFELLEJ~. I think we have found that has already been true under the present legislation; but I do not know how it would work out under some of the features of the new legislation. Now, a community can expand its sewage system and its sewage treatment plant to include the requirements of a local industry. Thus, the financing can be undertaken by government, getting the benefits that government is providing through the Federal aid and the State aid, where there is State aid and the tax exemption. This becomes an attractive feature in bringing in industry or holding an industry, which is otherwise faced with a very high charge on preparing and installing its own treatment facilities. I recommended, 2 years ago, I think, that the Federal Government give tax exemption, or 1-year writeoff rather, because it does not tax on real property. 1-year writeoff against income on the installation of any sewage treatment facility. This would be very helpful. I do not think such a writeoff has been granted yet. Therefore, this other feature which you are talking about is a very important one and does permit local communities to be competitive with a city where the city is already handling the waste of the in- dustry, which is located in the city. Mr. CLATJSEN. As you know, there has been an arbitrary cutoff in this legislation for communities 125,000 and above. These would be the only ones to be really considered. And so there are some of us that feel that this is really an oversight and should be corrected. Would you agree with this point of view? Governor ROCKEFELLER. I think really it is trying to compensate for what was in the original bill, which was a penalty against the larger cities. Frankly, the legislation in the original form, in the prior years, was discriminatory against big cities, because half the money had to go to communities under a certain size. There was also a per plant limit, and I think that on one of the big plants in New York City, PAGENO="0286" 278 about $17 million was received out of a total cost of about $230 million, something like that, or $208 million. So I think in a way this present proposal may be designed to com- pensate for a previous situation; but I agree with you. I can see no reason why they all should not be on a the same basis. Mr. CLAUSEN. I think this is the point that I want to make because you might aggravate the problem by offering more incentives to the so-called larger urban areas and lose the one opportunity that I believe we have to in effect decentralize this country. Would you agree with this? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Well, it certainly is an opportunity. I think there are others. I think the whole Federal highway program is very helpful too in getting money for these important highways that tie in these smaller communities and make them a part of the total. But I agree with you that there is no reason why all communities should not be on the same basis. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. Mr. BLATNITL Mr. Howard. Mr. HOWARD. I wish to join the others in thanking you for appear- ing here and for your fine statement concerning the proposed Federal legislation. We in New Jersey look upon your program for water pollution abatement with a good deal of respect and admiration. And I notice that it will end in 1972. And many of us hope to be seeing you admin- istering and operating this program in New York State to its culmi- nation. [Laughter.] Governor ROCKEFELLER. I probably will. [Laughter.] Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Can I say, Mr. Chairman, I only hope that I live to see the day when New Jersey cleans up its waters on the Hudson River. [Laughter and applause.] Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, as a Democrat from New York, of which you are the Republican Governor, let me say publicly that I have been very im- pressed with the dynamic role you played in the mobilization of the State, Federal, and local resources, to attack this tremendous problem of water pollution. EFFECT OF PREFINANCING CUTOFF Yesterday in a colloquy with the executive secretary of the Michi- gan Water Resources Commission, it was brought out that the pre- financing provision which you advance so vigorously, and which we followed through in putting into law, has been the foundation on which at least nine States-New York, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wis- consin, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Pennsylvania-con- structed or are constructing a full-scale pollution attack. New, this official, Mr. Oeming, told us that if the prefinancing pro- vision is eliminated starting this July 1 no less than 229 of Michigan's PAGENO="0287" 279 336 pollution abatement projects will be knocked out of any Federal aid. The reasons for this are twofold. One, these 229 projects are com- munities of less than 125,000; and, secondly, because obviously there will not be enough cash available in the grant porgram. My question, Governor, is: How many of New York's contemplated projects would lose Federal aid if the prefinancing provision is dropped July 1? Governor ROCKEFEELER. As far as New York state is concerned, the public authorized a bond issue of $1 billion, half of which is for pre- financing the Federal share; and probably-being completely candid here-the State would go ahead on this program. However, it is the local governments who have to sell bonds and who would not-and particularly those under 125,000 population- some communities get prefinancing and there would not be the oppor- tunity for in my opinion to shift these programs to conform to this new law. I think we would have a stalling of a large percentage of our pro- gram in N~w York, primarily by local government. If we had to force them through the courts by legal action to go ahead, even though they were not going to get any of this back on prefinancing, I think it would take years for us to do it. It would have a disastrously disrupting effect. Of the $534 million in projects planned for 1969 we expect to prefinance about $250 million. Mr. MCCARTHY. So that half would be knocked out, eventual reim- bursement, if the prefinancing provision were dropped? Governor ROCKEFELLER. They would all be knocked out, except the State would go ahead with its share; but the local governments would not, because they would then be caught in a bind. So it would in a sense be the same as Michigan. There are both sides of it. In New York the State has the funds. It would be very expensive to the State. Mr. MCCARTHY. Yesterday in another colloquy with the Secretary of Interior, I advanced the proposition that he consider an optional feature to: retain the present financing feature, as the chairman in- dicated we might this morning, and then offer states that route or the bonding route. His response was that we might be able to work that out. I think there is a lot of sentiment on this committee for re- taining the prefinancing provision. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Congressman, do you know whether that would include permitting under those projects which were pre- financed the use of tax-exempt bonds? Because if we had to go to tax- able bonds and pay the higher interest rate, one, we would be held up by the:law as was pointed out that we do not have the right to sell over 5-percent interest; and, secondly, the cost would be far greater PAGENO="0288" 280 and therefore the amount of bond authorization we have would not cover it. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, that is another side of it. Certamly your testi- mony has been very important this morning. I know that we will get into that phase of it, too. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Governor. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman, it is good to welcome the Governor here. In view of the fact that I have an opportunity to see him often, I shall not take long. I heard the comment of my dear friend from New Jersey, Mr. Howard. Let me say, Governor, it was a pleasure to work with you in Albany and that the water is lovely down here, and I would be happy to work with you anywhere, sir. [Laughter.] Thank you for being here today. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Duncan. Mr. DUNCAN. No qestions. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel. . Mr. SCHWENGEL. Governor, it is good to see you here again. I join with all of those who pay tribute to your testimony and offer my thanks for giving us the benefit of the experience you are having m New York and contributing to those around you. Just recently I read again your book on the Federal system. And I note from your testimony, I note from your record, that you are carrying through on what you talked about in a series of lectures cul- minated in that very fine book. And it is a very fine contribution to political literature of our country. IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH I am especially interested in research. And especially in this area I note that you have commented on research. Do you agree with me that research ought to be a continuing part of this program, because as we move into technical aids and as we develop all the new chemicals for all of our production facilities and our industries, and I am thinking now especially of the farm area where we depend so much on chemicals for fertilizer, and so forth, that we ought not to strengthen that aspect of this bill and give a lot more thought to the possibilities of research and what it can give us in the way of other and better answers to many problems that are going to plague us in the future ~ Governor ROCKEFELLER. I certainly would agree with you on that. We have felt that research was important in terms of both control to be more understanding, as you say the use of chemicals and so forth, what their impact is in effect, plus what the possibilities are for de- veloprng new methods of purifying the water that would be far less expensive in terms of capital investment, and therefore that could save large capital investments by developing some new methods of cleaning up the waters, removing the pollutants. PAGENO="0289" 281 Mr. SCHWENGEL. Further, on that point, Governor, you are aware of the very fine research that we had in the highway system, one in New Jersey, one in Illinois where the fact was that industry cooper- ates, State and local communities cooperate, and the Federal Govern- ment cooperates, and we have a joint effort there and it has been a mae~nificent contribution. Would you think it might be advisable for us to consider this kind of thing so that we can more truly-for research and pollution- more truly reflect the need and the changes and the special needs of areas in the community? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Dr. Hollis Ingraham is in charge of this. I would be glad to have him comment on that if you would permit me. Dr. INGRAHAM. Part of the Governor's program was to intensify research activities. And as his arm, the Government, was concerned with that, we have been contracting with universities to carry on research in algae control, looking for better methods of treatment, looking for methods of reducing phosphates, taking care of chemicals you mentioned, and in addition to that we are also carrying on research within the department, our Division of Laboratories and Research. And we have recently made an arrangement with the Department of Correction to establish a pilot program in one of the institutions where it will be a combined training program for inmates and an opportunity for research activities in various methods of sewage treatment. So we feel that this is very definitely something that needs to be intensified at this time. We are able unquestionably to clean up the streams of the State without any trouble, so that they are in very good shape. However, there are certain problems that are bothering us. The wastes from paper plants need more investigation. There is the problem of taking care of the enrichment of our lakes, a very serious problem, and one that needs to be attacked very vigorously. Governor ROCKEFELLER. So in other words if a small effort relatively sneaking can be productive, certainly a coonerative effort, Federal, State, with private, would certainly be beneficial. Mr. SCHWENGEL. That would be another way to carry forward the solution by using what you have called the Federal system. I am glad to have your comment on that. SOIL CONSERVATION One other thing, you will recall from the history of your State and the history of your country there was another great New York Gov- ernor who laid out the pattern for conservation. And I am very in- terested in conservation, and I am keenly aware of the fact that in the Midwest we are losing millions of tons of the best soil we have every year floating down the river. And I have a feeling the resolution of this problem will relate to the problem of solving pollution. We now know how to contain our soil. We know how to prepare watersheds. We are not moving very fast on that. But we had a better program. And in ad- dition to the completion of the watershed program, that would help in resolving the Government pollution problem. Is that right? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Exactly. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Denney. 94-376 O-68-19 PAGENO="0290" 282 INDtrSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS Mr. DENNEY. Governor, I was quite interested in your testimony on page 3 with reference to the tax exemption industrial development bonds. I know that you and your staff are aware of the fact that the FEC also has a proposed regulation to remove the exemption of polit- ical subdivisions. And it seems to me we are getting into the program here where the Federal Government is trying to say the political sub- divisions have come to Washington to get your financing. And this bothers me. Now, you say on page 3 that you are aware of the indiscriminate use in industrial development bonds and you support appropriate action to prevent these abuses. Now, I take it that you do feel that the industrial development bonds to a certain limitation should have a tax-exempt status, because it helps especially in rural areas, small communities, to bring industry in. Could you comment about what appropriate action would you sup- port to prevent these abuses? (Mr. Dorn assumed the Chair.) Governor ROCKEFELLER. Well, I think the basic concept of the tax- exempt bond is that it should be used for a State or local governmental purpose, and not just to help a private industry get a competitive ad- vantage over another industry, that it must be for some clear objective, that is an objective accepted by the people as a purpose, social purpose. For instance, you have a slum area where there is high unemployment to help attract an industry back into that area where they can give blue collar employment, where the people are now being supported by wel- fare relief. Mr. DENNEY. In other words, industrial development bonds would set up industry in areas where there is unemployment., then it has a definite basic purpose in our financial structure? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Yes. Mr. DENNEY. Is it not true also, and I suppose your staff has studied this, that we are violating a constitutional decision where we are saying that one political subdivision cannot tax another? Here we are con- sidering legislation that should be in the Ways and Means Committee, rather than here, and we are saying that the Federal Government will tax a political subdivision bonds, and to me this is absolutely contrary to the very basic constitutional question that has been the rule of law in this country since its founding. I appreciate your coming here, Governor. Mr. PORN. Thank you. Mr. Mcdonald. Mr. MCDONALD. Governor, the members of this committee are well aware of the good work that you have accomplished for New York in this water pollution problem. We are very pleased that you have come here today and shared your experience with us. CONCEPT OF FEDERAL SYSTEM INVOLVED Governor ROCKEFELLER. You are very kind. I appreciate the oppor- tunity. I think this is a very important question, that is both in relation PAGENO="0291" 283 to water pollution and the fundamental concept of the federal system in the area of tax~exemption. And I said in my statement there if the courts do not knock it out, because I question it myself, whether there is not a constitutional question-but who knows what the courts will do? Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Hammerschmidt, I believe at the moment you have two Gover- nors Rockefeller. So we are delighted to have you question the Governor. Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. Governor, I join others in welcoming you to the committee today. I am certainly pl~ased with the tone of your statement, but certainly not surprised; because as our acting Chair- man, Mr. Dorn, says, I have a genuine pleasure of working with another Governor Rockefeller. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. HAMMERS0HMIDT. And I think this same ideology is reflected here. And that is, your statment reveals your feeling that constructive legislation can be written to accelerate this much needed program, and yet I know that you speak out in what I consider very wisely in protecting a certain philosophy of government, as it pertains to pos- sible physical encroachment on the exemptions to municipalities and other entities of government, and also to the user charge which would certainly inhibit the flexibility of local government. Governor ROCKEFELLER. That is right. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. And I congratulate you for your very helpful testimony here this morning. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Hammerschmidt. The Chair would like to ask the distinguished Governor of New York if his opposition to the taxation of State municipal bonds here today, if that also includes municipal bonds for industrial expansion? Governor ROCKEFELLER. As long as bonds are for a clearly stated governmental purpose or objective, there is no reason to remove the tax exemption. I can understand Treasury's concern that this could get to a point where any industry could go looking for tax-exempt bonds, and it would not invest its own money any more, and that this would then destroy a very important segment of Federal re~~enue and a legitimate one. I think that this really is a philosophical question relating to our concept of government and the federal system as against a central gov- ernmental structure, which exists in many countries. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Governor. I quite agree, because some of the States in the Union, whose economies are perhaps a little bit weaker than your great State, have found industrial development very advan- tageous. Revenue bonds have been of great assistance to smaller com- munities, and have helped slow the trend toward urbanization, which is one of our great problems in this country today. So, I commend you. Mr. Miller from Ohio, one of our very fine members of the committee. Mr. MILLER. I wish to compliment the Governor on his fine state- ment. PAGENO="0292" 284 INTEREST RATES ON LOCAL BONDS I would like to ask when we consider that the bond money comes from the private money market, and we are speaking now of that share of possibly 70 down to 45 percent, supply and demand will control this interest rate. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Sure. Mr. MILLER. We have now a bill, as I understand it, that would pledge the full faith and credit of the Federal Government behind many of the programs that would be put forth by the larger cities. My question is, Do you feel that this would drive up the interest rates to those communities that would tend to help themselves and not be a part of the Federal programs, and therefore they would be somehow restricted or penalized for going it alone because they could not be a part of a Federal program? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Miller, may I call on Joe Murphy, who is very familiar with this whole problem in the money market. He is the commissioner of taxation and finance. And if it would be all right with you, I would like to get his professional reaction. Would that be all right, Mr. Chairman? (Mr. Blatnik resumes the chair.) Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Mr. MURPHY. It seems to me that this would probaMy not be the problem with this situation any greater than it is today, because we have, had a variance in interest rates and in volume of Government bonds, U.S. Government, which have remained about the same over a period of several years. And only in 1963 did our municipal bonds comprise one-third of this `total. Governor ROCKEFELLER. His ciuestion was-a Federal guarantee on a municipal bond would probably result in a lower interest rate be- cause of a better credit risk with a Federal guarantee, would that `have an adverse effect on the interest rate-if I understood your queston- an adverse effect on the interest rate of a community that wanted to go on its own without taking the Federal guarantee. Mr. MILLER. And naturally, the supply and demand does say where the money would go; and is it possible that it would be pulled away from the smaller communities under 125,000 population, where they must have a higher interest rate? Governor ROCKEFELLER. Maybe I could comment on that this way. We have experienced in our own State that there are small com- munities who cannot sell bonds at a reasonable rate-some cannot sell them at all because their credit is not good enough and others have to pay a very high rate which is almost prohibitive. That is why we set up the pure water authority which is a public-benefit authority that can go n and contract for the community or for a group of communities. So we have tried to meet this by provid~ng a vehicle that these communities could use to get around this problem of their lack of good cre4it or credit standing. I would say if, with the guarantee, municipalities were to `sell a lot PAGENO="0293" 285 more bonds, that it might drive interest rates up by the very de- mand that you mentioned. But if the local community had a good credit rating, they would not go up probably any higher than the group as a whole. In other words, it would just be supply and demand, as you say. I do not think it would be very adverse, except for the community that has a poor rating. And I think there is some need, and I would feel that maybe this authority that we have set up could have very useful implications for other communities, other States, to help those communities that need it. SOLID-WASTE MANAGEMENT There is a very interesting byproduct in that. We gave the authority power to handle solid wastes and I think this is going to turn out to be the biggest thing that this corporation has. It is now studying solid waste problems in New York City with some of our suburban counties. 411 of these communities have got a terrible problem of what to do with garbage. They cannot burn it because of air pollution; they cannot dump it because of water pollution. We may end up with this corporation handling most of the solid waste in the State and using it for fill, construction, compact it, encase it, so it will not pollute the area, and it could be quite an exciting new development as a byproduct of the pure-water program. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Governor, we thank you and your staff of experts with you very much for the more than generous time you have given us. We are very anxious to assist the municipalities and to assist the States and I think we can work something out, get a combination, flexible combination of many of these proposals before us so it will be realistic and workable. Thank you very much, Governor. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say as a citizen we are very fortunate that there are men like those gathered in this room who are giving the kind of detailed care and consider- ation to these kind of national problems and the leadership in solving them. I am very grateful to you and your associates as a citizen. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. Let us please have order. Those standing either retire to the rear of the room or make yourselves comfortable. We appreciate the cooperation of the very splendid audience we had this morning. We want to make you comfortable in every way possible. Time is running out with quite a few witnesses before us. Next we will hear our colleague, member of the House from Massa- chusetts, Mr. Hastings Keith. Congressman, thank you for your patience in waiting. Let the record show you have been here all morning long listening to the testimony and the subsequent interrogation of the Governor of New York. PAGENO="0294" 286 THE OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1968 STATEMENT OP HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS Mr. KEITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Keith, proceed at will. I notice you do have a prepared statement. Mr. KEITH. I have a prepared statement. I would like to scan it quickly for you and than make a very short comment. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you want to read it? Whatever may be your desire. It can appear in the record in its entirely. Mr. KEITH. I will be happy to read it if your schedule permits. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, please. Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my strong endorse- ment to H.R. 15906, the Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Con- trol Act., which I feel is essential to protect every coastal community in the National from the possibility of devastating oil pollution. My district includes the shoreline running from the outskirts of Boston, down to and including all of Cape Cod. It also has the shoreline south of the cape to the fishing port of New Bedford. We know from first- hand experience how vulnerable our shore communities are to pollu- tion of their fish and shellfish resources, their resort beaches, wildlife habitats, and scenic retreats. Almost 1 year ago today, Mr. Chairman, I visited the scene of history's worst oil pollution disaster. The supertanker Torrey Canyon, carrying 120,000 tons of crude petroleum, went aground off the coast of England, and blackened over 100 miles of the Cornwall shoreline. I was a Member of the congressional delegation which attended an emergency meeting of IMCO, the International Maritime Consultative Organization, which was called to discuss the legal and technical questions arising from this disaster. Upon my return, I filed my report to the Congress which, among other measures. called for improved Government machinery to cope with offshore oil pollution, both of the small-scale "routine" kind, and large-scale disasters like the Torrey Canyon. Since that time, Mr. Chairman, Cape Cod and the entire New England coastline have suf- fered from repeated pollution incidents which have caused minor and major damage to valuable coastal resources. Last month, as you know, the United States was confronted by its first major oil pollution disaster, in Puerto Rico's San Juan harbor. The oil carrier, Ocean Eagle, broke in two on submerged reefs in the mouth of the harbor, spilling a large portion of its 6-million-gallon cargo over 11 miles of the Western Hemisphere's finest resort. beaches. I visited the scene of this incident in an effort to judge our Govern- ment's ability to cope with a serious oil spill, in the light of the Torrey Canyon experience. AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATION BILL PROPOSED My conclusion, Mr. Chairman, were that new authority, new gov- ernmental machinery, and new technical means were urgently needed PAGENO="0295" 287 to deal with this constantly growing threat. H.R. 15906 provides, in my opinion, the basis for these vital improvements. My companion bill, H.R. 16559, calls for two amendments to the committee's bill, and I would like to call your attention to these changes. COVERAGE SHOULD EXTEND TO PORTIONS OF THE HIGH SEAS First, my bill would broaden the geographical area of the Secretary's cleanup responsibilities, to include portions of the high seas outside the 12-mile zone designated in H.R. 15906. Subsection (j) on page 7 of my bill says that: The Secretary may also remove or arrange for the removal of oil discharged in any manner into the high seas outside the contiguous zone if such oil may lead to pollution of the navigable waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone, or if such oil threatens damage to valuable resources on or above the Continental Shelf. Any large-scale oil spill, Mr. Chairman, would pose a serious threat to fisheries resources which lie far beyond the 12-mile area con- templated by the committee bill, and should be within the authority of the Secretary to ameliorate. The Georges Banks fishing grounds, which extends some 200 miles off the coast of Cape Cod and which produce 12 percent of the world's total fish catch, are extremely vul- nerable to pollution resulting from tanker traffic, and they should be included within the protection of this legislation. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this proposed amendment does not extend any of the penalties or liabilities in the bill to ships operating on the high seas, and thus does not involve any interna- tional legal complications. RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD BE ASSIGNED IN ADVANCE OF EMERGENCY The second improvement to which I would like to draw your attentin is in subsection (k), also on page 7 of my bill. Paragraph (1) says that the Secretary shall, "immediately upon enactment of this section, and where appropriate, delegate to other Federal agencies the author- ity for planning, directing, controlling, and coordinating the re- moval of such oil" from the affected waters and shorelines. The reason for this change is that the committee bill, on. pages 6 and 7, paragraphs (1) and (2), is somewhat vague in stating iust how and when the Secretary shall delegate the clean-up responsibility to the other agencies which will have the actual operating authority. We should not wait until an accident has occurred and the oil is on the water, to designate the agency which will take action. This is indeed the fatal weakness in the present law, and we should not repeat it in the new program. My amendment would require the Secretary to make immediate arrangements for the assigning of responsibility well in advance of an emergency. Machinery would be set up and contingency plans would be made for coping with oil spills, avoiding the need for last- minute improvising. In Puerto Rico, Mr. Chairman, I found that the government au- thorities on the scene were confused about their authority to act, and that emergency preparations were virtually nonexistent. Despite any studies or reports that have been made since the Torrey Canyon PAGENO="0296" 288 disaster, supplies to combat the poflution were not readily available, and local Coast Guard authorities were forced to take charge on an ad hoc basis, with any guidance. For example, Mr. Chairman, when I visited down there as did Mr. Howard of your committee, and I asked at a meeting which had been assembled for the purpose of discussing this problem, I said "Well, who is in charge ?" And the Captain of the Coast Guard said, "Well, I guess I am." And he said that only after some thought. TIME TO ENACT AN EFFECTIVE LAW To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provisions of H.R. 15906, and I respectfully urge the adoption of the two amend- ments which I have outlined. It is time that the Congress enact a truly effective antipollution law, and it is essential to give this needed protection to coastal communities whose valuable and irreplaceable coastal resources are in constant danger of serious pollution damage. Mr. Chairman, the various agencies of our government have been studying this at least since the Torrey Canyon disaster, studying it vigorously and perhaps at times very feverishly, to develop standard operating procedures for dealing with such disaster. We need to assign responsibility, we need to find techniques and procedures, and we need to get the kinds of equipment that can deal with these problems. - But as in many areas of Federal activity, when the last emergency occurred, that of the Puerto Rico, little evidence was offered that any progress had been made. I mentioned in my prepared statement the Coast Guard's lack of real knowledge as to who was in charge. We must understand the problem. There is an inadequate standard operating procedure in existence at any echelon of government not paying attention to the needs, as I pointed out in my report when I returned from the Torrey Canyon disaster, for sealanes and for shore guidance systems. They are still in the trial and error stage on techniques. When we got down there to Puerto Rico, as Mr. Howard will tell you, they were experimenting on the scene, experiments which should have taken place in the interim since the Torrey Canuon disaster. And they did not even have a good supply of nontoxic detergents available. Now, I noted in a statement furnished me by the American Petro- leum Institute that they have announced their support of legislation attempting to deal with this. But their statement, although it is good, is negative in nature. They have in fact initiated a clean seas program. But in snite of this, the incidence of shoreline pollution `has increased. In their statement, they emphasize their interest in protecting them- selves from the damages that could be assessed. They should, on the other hand, it seems to me. be encouraa'ing their membership to adopt measures to prevent the kinds of incidents that will if not curtailed cause the insurance rates which they suggest to be reciuired to be so prohibitive that the independent companies will be unable to compete. And so, Mr. Chairman. we have a present and potential danger about which we can do something. It is a true piece of consumer legislation in its nresent form and like several other pieces of consumer legisla- tion, it costs very little and it may save a great deal. PAGENO="0297" 289 I strongly support the administration approach to this problem and urge your expeditious action on it. I think you very much for the opportunity to testify. Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman, I want to commend you for a very concise, pertinent, and very informative statement, based on personal experience. It is obviously very intense personal interest and participa- tion. COSPONSORS OF H.R. 16559 I want the record to show that the Congressman, as he has men- tioned, is author of H.IR. 16559 and is joined by his colleagues, Mr. Boland. Mr. Bates, Mr. O'Neill, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Halpern, Mr. Halferman, Mr. Dulski, Mr. McLeod, Mr. Blackburn, so you have quite a team supporting the two amendments, which I think are very, very well taken, plus other aspects that you raised. These and others will be given very detailed and full consideration in what we hope will be an effort to come out with sort of an omnibus bill, the financing section, the oil pollution aspects, the clean lakes program; we will hear testimony in just a minute on that by Mr. Henry and other very important areas of the comprehensive water pollution abatement program. We learn more as we go along. We have learned a lot in these past 10 years, especially in recent years. We appreciate the special efforts which you have obviously made to prepare your statement to be with us here this morning and make your presentation. Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that you would not delay action on this particular bill until such time as you have completed the overall approach. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Howard. Mr. HOWARD. I would just like to state that I certainly agree with Congressman Keith. I think that his testimony certainly is one of the most important that we have had and will have in discussing, con- sidering, this bill. I know that the Congressman from Massachusetts is probably one of the foremost experts in the oil pollution field. I thought I would be active myself in attempting to track down this problem, but wherever I went I found that Congressman Keith and I were overlapping in our visits. In Cornwall I found his tracks on the beaches; he had been there before I had arrived. I believe that his interest and his area is very much the same as many of us who represent seashore areas. I want to thank you for coming and making this statement and to assure you that when we get into Executive Session, your two amend- ments will have as strong a champion in the Executive Committee as I can make it. Mr. KEITH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I trust he agrees with me that this problem is divisible and should be broken into two parts and the oil pollution of the seas resolved more promptly, because of its relative simplicity. Mr. HOWARD. I certainly agree. Thank you. (At this point Mr. Dorn assumed the chair.) PAGENO="0298" 290 Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DORN. May I say to my distinguished colleague, I too think it a very fine statement and a fine study of water pollution problems. We are grateful for your sharing your views with the committee in this splendid statement this morning. I might say the cooperation of men like my colleague will enable Mr. Blatnik to get this legislation passed, unanimously accepted by Congress. Thank you. Mr. KEITH. I cannot say too often the importance of dealing with this particular segment. It is so simple of solution to proceed with the administration bill as it pertains to the pollution by oil of tankers that run aground. And it should not wait, because it is cheap but good legislation. Mr. PORN. Well, if I understood my colleague's testimony correctly, * it polluted 120 miles from shorelines, just this one ship. Mr. KFJITH. Well, that is a little longer than the actual amount of shoreline that. was polluted, but the potential is there, and certainly 120 miles of shoreline across our eastern seacoast has been polluted since the Torrey Canyon disaster, not all of it in Puerto Rico. Mr. DORN. Thank you. Mr. KEITH. Thank you. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. PORN. Yes. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. CII~iiR. I have had a chance to take a look at this statement. I think Mr. Keith has mentioned very constructive suggestions. I, too, am most interested, as some other members of the commit- tee, in this water pollution problem. We have a number of sunken tankers off the coast of Florida, and so forth. We have had the recent experience in Puerto Rico. LEGISLATION WOULD NOT APPLY TO OASES OF UNKNOWN VIOLATOR However, the bill as drafted, I think, maybe has another weakness, and that is we seem to have oil slick problems off of Hawaii, but they do not know the cause. The bill as drafted by the administration, as I understand it, would not cover that situation at all. It is only where you have a known violator, perpetrator, and a remedy against him. Mr. KEUm. That is true. There are certain problems that are beyond our scope. And this might perhaps be comparable to the "act of God" kind of hazard. But at least where the culprit can be found, my bill, as supported by the study that is contained as a result of my visit to the Torrey Canyon disaster, provides a way to establish responsibility and take other action than just~ corrective after the incident has occurred. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much. JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 12-MILE LIMIT Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, before he leaves the witness seat, I would like to ask him some questions, if I may. PAGENO="0299" 291 First, I want to congratulate you for your leadership in this field, but I am a little concerned about this 3-mile/12-mile-and-beyond jurisdiction. How do you propose to get jurisdiction to control the 12- mile limitation? Mr. KEITH. The administration bill does not go beyond the 12-mile limit because they were concerned, I believe, about the assessment of liability, the action that I referred to by the American Petroleum Institute where they stress the liability for the damage that may re- sult from offshore pollution. And just because they cannot find the guilty party or cannot get compensation for an action that took place beyond the 12-mile limit does not mean that we do not have a respon- sibility for those people who are affected by the shore floating within- by the oil that floats within the 12-mile limit. And if we can get out there and take corrective action prior to the oil coming to the shore- line, we may protect the shortline itself. And I believe we should be interested in that problem out there as well as inshore. Mr. HARSHA. But do we have jurisdiction out there? Mr. KEITH. Nobody else has any better jurisdiction and if we can prove a present danger; nobody else is going to object to our taking action. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. CLAtJSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. I do not have the floor. Mr. DOR~. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. First of all, I do want to compliment the gentleman for again appearing before this committee on the matter of interest as expressed in his testimony. But I believe he has certainly touched on a very serious point, and that is the question of jurisdiction over many matters. This is just one of them beyond the 3- and the 12-mile limitation. And I think that the Congress and the appropriate committees of the Congress are go- ing to have to give some more serious consideration to the jurisdictional question so that in the future we can deal with the problems that do exist out there. And so I just want to compliment the gentleman again for taking the time to present his point of view as one of the members who represents a coastal district. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Clausen. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Keith. Our next witness is my good personal friend, Congressman Hanley, from New York. I served with him on the Veterans Committee. We are glad to have you, Mr. Hanley. LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OP HON. JAMES HANLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK Mr. HANLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee. As I walked into your crowded hearing room this morning, I thought: My, isn't it nice, all of these people have assembled to hear PAGENO="0300" 292 my remarks on America's small lakes. And my ego was somewhat de- flated as I observed who the witness was. I am most grateful for the opportunity to testify this morning on a matter which I think is quite important and I am sure that all of you members who have exercised such a great interest in the problem of water pollution will agree. On your calendar is H.R. 10751, a bill which I have introduced to amend section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by di- recting the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a research and demonstration program for the improvement of the quality of the Nation's lake waters. I believe that such a program is needed. NEED FOR A SPECIAL LAKE RESTORATION PROGRAM The Government Operations Committee of the House issued a re- port in August of 1967 entitled "To Save America's Small Lakes." And at this point I would want to express my gratitude to Chairman Bob Jones, of the House Committee on Natural Resources, for his active interest in our particular problem. And I might say that this report and recommendations contained in this report have been en- dorsed by all 50 Governors. This report makes a strong case for much greater attention to what is happening to our lakes, and it recommends the enactment of legislation to promote an expanded research and demonstration pro- gram to find ways to retard the degradation of our lakes and to promote their restoration. This report lays out the dimensions of the problem much more eloquently than I could. We know that municipal and industrial wastes will inflict greater damage on a lake than on a stream. New, this is particularly true where a lake is small and has a long detention period. Over the years, lakes which had served a number of purposes were unable to cope with the imposition of such wastes, and now their usefulness is severely limited. The American people are looking toward water-related recreational facilities, and lakes which were once able to support many forms of water-related recreation are no longer visited. I want to see the De- partment of the Interior taking an active and ambitious role in the restoration of the water quality, and the usefulness of America's lakes. Your committee has seen fit in the past to recognize the need for special legislative tools to cope with several of the special problems associated with water pollution control and abatement. The Depart- ment of the Interior is now promoting research and demonstrations in the areas of advanced waste treatment, joint municipal-industrial wastewater treatment, and the treatment of wastewater from com- bined storm and sanitary sewers. It would seem to me that a special program dealing with the special problems of lakes would be a natural extension of this policy. The hydrologic characteristics of lakes suggest that water quality prob- lems are going to persist even after the construction of sound munici- pal and industrial waste treatment facilities, particularly in cases where the lakes have experienced a long history of degradation. Even highly cleansed wastes will have a difficult time, when combined with PAGENO="0301" 293 clean water from tributaries, in neutralizing the self-polluting condi- tion of such lakes. In short, the condition of the receiving body ~wi11 demand just as much attention as the waters which flow into it. ONONDAGA LAKE The Government Operations Committee Report, which I referred to earlier, comments on a lake situated within my congressional district. Onondaga Lake was described by the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration in 1966 as being the most serious pollu- tion problem in the Lake Ontario Basin. It said, "Literally used up, its waters are extremely degraded, and in the south end in particular, the lake is an ugly eyesore." The south end of the lake lies within the city of Syracuse. "To Save America's Small Lakes" comments favorably on a com- munity consensus that the lake can and should be rehabilitated. Local government has already taken advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of joint industrial-municipal waste treat- ment by applying for and receiving a grant under the section 6 pro- gram. I believe that this community intends to take the steps necessary to see that all wastewater entering Onondaga Lake is adequately treated. The great difficulty, of course, is to determine what treatment is adequate in view of the complex condition of the lake itself. It would be regrettable should many millions of dollars be invested in the construction of waste treatment facilities only to learn that the lake's usefulness will not be appreciably expanded. Our situation cannot be unique, and it is the purpose of H.R. 10751 to set in motion the kind 9f research and demonstration projects needed to find the answers before new facilities are constructed. R AND D THE BASIS FOR ACTION TO IMPROVE LAKE WATERS A body of water's usefulness is determined by its quality, and with certain lakes, the quality of wastewater is but one factor which will determine the quality of the lake's waters. Substantial investment in treatment facilities must be justified in terms of providing public benefits, and I believe that the expenditure of funds for facilities with- out taking into account other relevant factors will he wasteful. Unless we can know with a degree of certainty that our financial commit- ment is really going to bring about usable bodies of water, we ought to question the advisability of the commitment. To provide this degree of certainty is the principal reason why I have introduced H.R. 10751. Of course, there is the difficulty in determining what should be the reasonable use of a certain body of water. Obviously, some lakes will n~ver again be able to support the full spectrum of water-related recreation, but they might be able to serve as a source of supply for industries and municipalities. They may also be able to support certain forms of fish and wildlife. It seems to me that the citizens of an area~, in the last analysis, will make the deter- mrnation as to the future uses of a body of water, and hopefully, their decision will be based on knowledge of what is feasible and what costs PAGENO="0302" 294 are involved. This is why I believe that it is important to conduct the research and the demonstrations needed to discover, test, and cost out the approaches to improving the water quality of the Nation's lakes. And if we were to prorate the amount of money we request in this authorization which would be $10 million, on a 4-year basis, or a total of $40 million, we are actually talking about approximately $10 a lake. I am told that we have about 100,000 small lakes in America. So we are talking about an investment of but $10 a lake, or a total of $40 over a 4-year period to provide this Nation with the opportunity to best evaluate the best way of rehabilitating destroyed bodies of water, such as the one I referred to. The Secretary of the Interior had the occasion to pay a visit to particular bodies just a month or two ago. lie, agreed wholeheartedly with respect to the necessity of this tool within our Federal structure to provide communities the opportunity to proceed with the costly rehabilitation process. Gentlemen, again I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. Mr. PORN. Congressman Hanley, on behalf of the committee, cer- tainly on behalf of the chairman, I want to express to you our ap- preciation for a very splendid and timely statement. I can assure you that your bill, the one you introduced, will be very seriously and earn- estly considered. I might say, while you are still in the witness chair, that we are happy this morning in committee to have a group of young Americans with us from Briarcliff College, Briarcliff men in New York. If your friends and visitors would just stand for a second, I would appreciate it. We are delighted to have you. Would you stand, up, please? [Applause.] Mr. DORN. You have in the committee here Congressman McCarthy, from New York, Congressman McEwen down there, and Congres~- man Jim Hanley is in the witness chair. We have just had the great, distinguished Governor from New York. So we are happy on your visit here the first time to have so many friends on the committee with us today. I might say Congressman Hanley's statement certainly should ap- peal to each of you, because this deals with tomorrow, cleaning up our streams and lakes so that you can use them. Thank you so much for coming. Any questions of Mr. Hanley? Mr. `CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I appreciate your statement, Mr. Hanley. Mr. CRAMER. Very greatly. EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM I would just raise the question for the committee's consideration. It appears to me the present language of the present law is actually broad enough to cover any body of water and of course the basin plans. You have to include all lakes for the basin planning aspects of it and the general grant authority for demonstration projects related to lakes or rivers. So I think it is an excellent objective, but I just wonder if the present law does not cover it? PAGENO="0303" 295 Mr. HANLEY. In my guests for assistance on this matter several years ago, 1 was advised that the provision does not exist for this particular endeavor within the present law. This advice was given me both by the Department of the Interior and the other responsible segments of Government. - I might comment further that in conference with Secretary Udall on this, again he termed it competitive legislation, reflecting on the fact that up until this point we do not have such a tool within our framework, that we have devoted our efforts majorly to the field of antipollution and up to this point really have not needed this partic- ular type of instrument. Mr. DORN. Congressman McCarthy. SMALL LAKE PROBLEM WARRANTS ATTENTION Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome our distinguished colleague from New York. I recall when I was a boy I used to go down with my family to Onon- daga Lake, which at that time was a pristine, lovely lake, utilized for every conceivable recreational pursuit. And in recent years, in my visits to Syracuse, I really noticed the visible deterioration of the lake. And I must say that in my most recent visits, everybody is talking about the leadership that Congressman Hanley has provided. He is really the first one to come forward to mobilize an effort to save and restore Onondaga Lake. It seems to me that if there is nothing in the present law to direct efforts to the smaller lakes, that we should give some serious thought to Congressman Hanley's bill and see if some of its provisions could not be enacted, because as he mentions, there are so many of these small lakes, and if we are overlooking them, I think we ought to dig into it. I just want to assure my friend from New York, my very good friend, that I will have your bill with me and as we get into the mark- up sessions, hopefully we can focus on this problem of the small lake. I want to thank you very much for your very valuable time. Mr. HANLEY. I am greatly appreciative for the observation of my friend and colleague from Buffalo. I liken this situation with that of an automobile engine which has been destroyed because of lack of oil or perhaps improper gasoline. Now, it is not going to do us any good to put oil in the crankcase or perhaps put premium gas in the tank. The engine has been destroyed. So before it is going to be usable again we have to take it apart and replace the affected parts and put it back together again. And so is the case with the destroyed body of water. This particular one, I might add, as you well know, is located actively in part within the confines of city limits. They have a population of approximately one- half million people. A lake 41/2 miles long by about 11/2 miles wide, which has been. destroyed for about 6 years, and it seems so sad and pathetic. Here within close proximity of this type of population that a body of water that Could be `serving such a wonderful recreational pur- pose is lost. Again, my appreciation for your observation. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Congressman Hanley. Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0304" .296 Mr. DORN. I might say this Committee on Public Works has han- dled probably more legislation affecting you than any other committee. of Congress, legislation covering water pollution, the Interstate High- way System, Appalachia, and so forth. We have quite a renowned list of visitors this morning as witnesses. We have with us now the distinguished Commissioner Polanco-Abreu, from Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner. He will be accompanied by an expert on marine biology. Commissioner, we are very pleased to have you. Just go right ahead. You have some pictures here. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OF HON. SANTIAGO P0LANCO-ABREU, RESIDENT COM- MISSI0I~ER OF PUERTO RICO; ACCOMPANIED BY ORVILLE WATKINS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Yes; I do. Mr. DORN. He would like to have these placed in his testimony. Very interesting. Mr. POLANCO-ABREtT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to express views in support of legislation to strengthen the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1924 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. My bill, H.R. 16163, has objectives simi- lar to those of H.R. 15906, by Chairman Fallon and the administration. I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the interest they have shown in Puerto Rico's efforts to combat the massive oil pollution threat facing the San Juan area following the breakup of the Liberian flag tanker, Ocean Eagle, at the entrance to San Juan Harbor on March 3, 1968. I am sorry that Commonwealth Secretary of Public Works Mr. Lizardi, who has been directing our massive beach and shoreline decontamination campaign, could not be here as planned. Instead, with the committee's permission, I should like to submit for the record a report by his department's petroleum emergency office, a special "task force" unit established to meet the pollution emergency, and his recommendations based omPuerto Rico's experience to date. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I submit exhibit No. 1. Mr. DORN. Yes; without objection. ("The Ocean Eagle Incident" by Lizardi follows:) THE "OCEAN EAGLE" INCIDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETROLEUM EMERGENCY OFFICE Introduction During the sixteenth century the San Juan Harbor was developed by the Spanish Crown due to its natural defensive features into their most notorious bastion in the Caribbean. The navigational difficulties and the heavy defensive fortifications eventually made this port a haven for the Spanish Main. Four centuries later, the tremendous industrial development of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico has transformed the old bastion into a port with an inten- sive commercial, industrial, and touristic traffic which reached approximately 3,350 ships in 1967. Most of the industrial traffic of the Commonwealth is gener- ated by the petrochemical industry, which, due to the absence of petroleum de- posits in the island must import its raw materials from other countries. This PAGENO="0305" 297 activity poses a potential pollution hazard to the coastal waters around the island. Unless preventive measures are undertaken and a corrective emergency plan is developed, we are liable to experience another disaster of even larger magnitude than the Ocean Eagle. Puerto Rico, just like other similar industrial communities on the coasts of the United States, share identical pollution dangers which in this age of techno- logical advances are constantly increased by the construction of jumbo-size tankers and the increment in the volume of the petroleum traffic. As in the case of the Torrey Ua'aycm disaster last year, we have acquired some knowledge of how to deal with an emergency of this nature. The purpose of this report is to summarize our experience and respectfully suggest some measures which should be undertaken to prevent and correct the consequences of similar accidents in the future. Description of the accident The Ocean Eagle, a fifteen year old tanker registered under the Liberian flag, was owned by the Northland Shipping Trading Company of New York. The 12,065 ton tanker departed from Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico with a reported cargo of 5.7 million gallons (US) of petro- leum crude to be delivered to the Caribbean Gulf Refining Corp. of Cataflo, Puerto Rico. Hazardous climatologic conditions existed in the Atlantic Ocean near the northern coast of Puerto Rico from the second to the fourth of March, 1968. Swells of 4 to 15 feet high were reported in this area approaching from the northwest, while mild winds from a northeasterly direction were recorded in San Juan. Under these unfavorable conditions in the dawn of March 3rd, 1968 the Ocean Eagle approached the 500 foot-wide entrance channel to the San Jan Harbor. According to the testimony of the ship's captain, the Ocean Eagle scraped its bottom several times about 7:00 a.m. in a few minutes after the port pilot had boarded the vessel. Immediately the crew observed steam, and petroleum leaking out through the sides of the ship and the order to abandon ship was given. Most of the 35 members of the crew abandoned the ship within an hour of the accident. They were rescued by the Puerto Rico Lighterage Company without loss of life or limb. The Ocean Eagle split in two parts moments later. The bow section was aground at a distance of approximately 300 yards north of the harbor's entrance and the stern drifted into the channel impeding the access to the San Juan Harbor. Simultaneously, the petroleum leaking from the ship wreck began to spread into the San Juan Bay and along the northern shore of the city. The unusual weather conditions that prevailed until March 4th, were respon- sible for the easterly drift of the oil slicks. After the swefls had dissipated, the northeasterly Trade Winds gained strength and generated the wave action that moved some of the oil slicks back towards the west. In the meantime, the Golden Coast of San Juan, where most of the luxury hotels are located, was intensely contaminated by the petroleum. The damage was affecting the marine traffic, the commerce, the oil industry, the tourism, the flora, the fauna, and the es- thetics of the city. Description of the Operations President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was in a weekend vacation at Ramey Air Force Base in Aguadilla. Puerto Rico, upon being informed of the Ocea'n Eagle accident ordered all federal agencies concerned to assist the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the emergency operations by all possible means. The Acting Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable G~illermo Irizarry, imme- diately met with all the federal and commonwealth agencies directly involved w-ith the accident to organize, plan, and coordinate all efforts to cope with the emergency. Responsibilities for the different operations were assigned at this meeting. These assignments w-ere based on the individual duties, functions, and experiences of the agencies and the equipment and facilities available. During the afternoon of March 3rd, the Acting Governor and the Secretary of Public Works made an aerial reconnaissance of the affected area to determine the extent of the damages. The largest concentration of petroleum was flowing into the San Juan Harbor and the oil slicks extended about three miles north 94-376 O-68---20 PAGENO="0306" 298 into the Atlantic Ocean. The beaches to the east of the harbor entrance were stained with a black film of petroleum up to a distance of five miles. Approxi- mately one million gallons of crude were in the water and four and a half mil- lion gallons remained in the bow and sterm sections of the tanker; moreover, the bow was still leaking petroleum at an alarming rate. 1. ACTIVITY OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES As soon as the Ocean Eagle accident occurred, those federal agencies which are authorized by law were immediately mobilized. The agencies concerned with the disaster were the U. S. Coast Guard, the U. S~ Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Navy, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Their ac- tivities during the emergency can be summarized as follows: A. Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard By authority of Executive Order of the~President of the United States No. 10173 as amended and the federal regulations \yhich deal with port Authorities (Title 33, Code of Federal Regulation Part 6.04, Captain of the Port), the U. S. Coast Guard began the search and rescue operations of the Ocean Eagle at 7:20 A. M. on March 3rd, 1968. The vessel was first reported in danger about 500 yards north of Punta El Morro, the rocky head land to the east of the entrance chan- nel. At 7 :45 A. M., the Coast Guard cleared the port entrance and established a schedule to enter and leave the harbor. The Coast Guard spread ernulsifiers around the wreck acting under the Coast Pollution Law of 1961 which prohibits the. dumping or spilling of oil in coastal waters. The emulsifiers were spread by tugboats and helicopters along the coast of San Juan to about 5 miles to the east of the entrance to the harbor. This activity was interrupted when the tugs were needed to pull the bow sea- ward. They were discontinued after a meeting where it was decided to eliminate the use of detergents. When the oil began to spread at an alarming rate, the Coast Guard enlisted the other state and federal agencies concerned with the accident to share the duties of the operation. As a result, numerotis agencies were involved in the activities to correct the problem; therefore, the Coast Guard cooperated with the other agencies in all aspects of the work. The Coast Guard set-up a refuge for oil-soaked pelicans at their San Juan base. These birds were washed with a mild Qetergent and were treated with a mixture of mineral and castor oil. Fourteen out of the thirty five pelicans treated have survived. The Coast Guard also built a 505 foot boom of wooden board with empty drums at both sides of the boat to float the boom. The purpose of the boom was to encircle the stern during the pumping operations, but it was never used. The boom was turned over to the 15.5. Army Corps of Engineers who in turn, handed over the boom to the Department of Public Works. The total cost of these activities has not yet been determined. B. Activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Navy The Corps of Engineers assumed responsibility for the removal of the Ocean Eagle wreck under section 19/20 of the River and Harbor Act of March 3rd, 1899. This act gives the Corps the responsibility for the removal of all wrecks which are a menace to navigation. In addition the Corps assisted in minimizing the pollution problem at the request of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. After the owners of the vessel had formally abandoned the ship on March 6th. the Jacksonville District, whose jurisdiction includes Puerto Rico, assumed the job of removing the bow and the stern. On March 8th, negotiations were initiated with the Murphy-Pacific Salvage Company for removal of the stern section. The contractors salvage vessel arrived the same day to begin salvage operations. The U.S. Navy agreed to handle the removal of the bow section. The Navy salvage team tried to pull the bow section off the coral reefs, but after many unsuccessful attempts, this operation was abandoned in favor of removing the crude and refioating this section for deep water disposal. Between March 14th and March 27th, nearly 2 million gallons of petroleum were removed from both sections of the tanker. The offloaded petroleum was transported by barge to the Caribbean Gulf Refinery docks. PAGENO="0307" 299 After various inspections, the Corps decided that both sections of the ship could be made sufficiently water-tight to insure flotation and towing to deep water. Heavy seas hindered salvage operations for five days, but on April 4th the Navy towed the bow section to sea and sank it in 600 fathoms of water about 8 miles north-northwest off El Morro. The Murphy Padfic Salvage Co. finished the dewatering, patching, and floating of the stern on April 9th. The following afternoon the stern was sunk in 600 fathoms of water, some 9.2 miles north-northwest off El Morro. The stern lies about 21/2 miles northwest of the sunken bow section. After 38 days of around the clock work, the talk was completed. Estimated cost of removing the crude oil, raising the two halves, and disposing them at sea was about $700,000.00. U. Activities of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration The members of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration ad hoc disaster team worked mainly as technical advisors to the Department of Public Works, the TI. S. Coast Guard, other federal and commonwealth agencies, and commercial establishments which asked for technical advice. An effort was made to try to coordinate the many diverse agencies which were concerned with pollu- tion problem. The FWPCA personnel maintained daily contact with the Coast Guard, Pub- lic Works, and other federal and commonwealth agencies. A FWPCA representa- tive attended product demonstrations of the representatives from many chemical companies. Most contaminated beaches were inspected more than once to note pollution effects and changes. Aerial reconnaissance surveys were conducted with the Coast Guard and Department of Public Works. The stern section was visited several times to inspect the pumping operations and evaluate the success of this activity. The FWPCA representatives questioned the effectiveness of the detergents and warned the Department of Public Works about their harmful effect on marine life. They also inspected the beaches where detergents had caused quick- sand condition along the shoreline. 2. ACTIVITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AGENCIES The task of cleaning and restoring the coastal waters and the beaches to their original condition was assigned to the Department of Public Works. A special unit was organized within the Department to perform these activities. The unit was designated as the Petroleum Emergency Office. The Office was staffed with specialized personnel recruited from the different bureaus of the Department. The principal objectives of this Office were: (1) the protection of the uncon- taminated areas, (2) the elimination of the petroleum crude floating on the water, (3) the cleaning of the contaminated beaches, and (4) the removal of any precipitated crude from the bottom of the sea in bathing areas. The first function of the Office was to prepare a comprehensive plan to cope with the problem. The coastal waters and beaches were divided into several sections according to their order of priorities and methods to treat each of these sections were carefully analyzed. Various aerial reconnaissance surveys were necessary to understand the magnitude of the problem and the trend of the petroleum movement. The plan was named "Operation Clean Up" and was executed immediately. The next activity of the Office was to determine the most effective method to remove the petroleum from the water and the beaches. Since it was desirable to test all the available means either in the laboratory or in the field, both mechan- ical and chemical means were tested. Mechanical methods were tested in limited areas in the field, while chemical methods were tested in the laboratory for (1) solubility, (2) emulsion capacity, (3) adsorption capacity, (4) toxicity, (5) precipitation, (6) floating ability, (7) ease of recovery, (8) degree of activity, (9) emulsion stability, and (10) agglutination. The products were divided into four classes which were: (1) adsorbents, (2) solvents, (3) emulsifiers, and (4) combinations of the previous three. After most of the readily available products had been tested, a decision was reached to use only non-toxic adsorbents and mechanical methods to directly recover the petroleum crude from the water and beaches. However, this decision did not preclude the future use of any other products found more effective than the ones so far tested. New products con- tinued to be tested in our laboratory for their corresponding evaluation. PAGENO="0308" 300 A. Treatment of petroleum on the sea The petroleum crude floating on the coastal waters was considered as the most critical condition encountered. Until these petroleum slicks were completely eliminated, the beaches were under a continuous pollution hazard. Fortunately, the final positions of the bow and stern to the west of the channel eliminated the danger of further contamination of the beaches. The physiography of the bay and a strong wave action from the north confined in the bay about two million gallons of the estimated 3.5 million gallons spilled by the ship. However, the petroleum that leaked out during the first four days after the accident, when the bow was located about 300 yards north of the channel, drifted as far as 30 miles east and 40 miles west. These slicks were reported floating up to a distance of about 10 miles offshore. As previously stated, the use of detergents to break the slicks offshore was the immediate action taken by the government during the afternoon of the accident. Four days later, this procedure was abandoned after field and laboratory tests proved that the use of detergents harmed marine life, coagulated the petroleum into heavy balls which sank to the bottom in the near shore, and formed a quick- sand condition in the beaches. To treat the petroleum in the sea a hydrophobic adsorbent called Ekoperl w-as used. The Ekoperl is a product of crushing, heat- ing, and treating of perlite. This product was found to effectively adsorb the petroleum floating in the water and was not toxic to marine life. The process of collection in the sea was difficult; therefore, the mixture was allowed to float to the shores where mechanical collection was feasible. The application of Ekoperl was conducted by means of boats and helicopters, and by hand from shore. The most effective method was by helicopter where the slicks could be easily located and rapidly treated. The turbulence generated by the prop-wash pushed down the powder into the water mixing it with the petroleum. The location and treatment of a slick from a large boat was a tedious process. The rough wave action also impeded the operations and the offshore reefs restricted the movement of the boat to deep waters. However, after the large petroleum slicks were eliminated, treatment of slicks close to shore was initiated by the use of small boats with outboard engines. The use of the helicopter to perform this operation was exceedingly expensive, since the slicks were small and located at considerable distances from each other. Throughout the treatment of the crude at sea, the difficulty of collecting the impregnated petroleum adsorbent was evident. The prediction of time and place where it was going to land was impossible due to the variations of the wind direction, tides, swells, and marine currents. Sometimes, the adsorbent landed on inaccessible shores or at times where the collection of the material was im- practical. The time lapse between application and collection sometimes permitted the heating action of the sun and the beating action of the waves to separate the crude from the adsorbent before the collection was possible. Therefore, treat- ment of the near shore was intensified to facilitate the collection of the im- pregnated material. B. Preventing the petroleum from reaching the beaches Mechanical means were used to confine or keep the petroleum out of certain beaches. Plastic slick booms and wooden barriers were used for this purpose. A twelve inch-plastic slick boom was used to confine the petroleum around the stern, but this boom proved to be ineffective due to the strong wave action and the fragileness of the construction. The petroleum escaped under and over these booms. The U.S. Coast Guard built a large wooden boom with boards of about four feet high and barrels attached to both sides of the boards to keep them floating in a vertical position. This huge boom was built to encircle the stern, but was never used for this purpose, since the petroleum was pumped out of the bow before completing the construction of the boom. The Coast Guard offered this boom to the Department for use in the protection of coastal areas. A wooden barrier was built to close the bridges that connected the sea with the Condado Lagoon. This measure kept the lagoon practically clean of slicks. Rough wave action destroyed parts of this barrier and reconstruction was needed several times. Finally, the barrier was allowed to float freely over* the surface of the water so as not to offer much resistance to wave action. Based on satisfactory results obtained in the lagoon, wooden booms were built in the protected embayments such as the Caribe Hilton Hotel beach and the PAGENO="0309" 301 San GerOnimo Beach. Once the petroleum was blocked from entering these em- bayments, the water and the beaches were cleaned with adsorbents. These booms were also set free by the rough wave action and had to be reconstructed. C. Treatment of petroleum on the near shore The general condition of the petroleum in the near-short consisted of a film of crude floating on the water. The thickness of this film varied from about six inches in some localities inside the San Juan Bay to an extremely thin veneer in the Atlantic coast to the east and west of the entrance channel. In accordance with each particular condition and locality, a different approach to solve the problem was required. In the case of the San Juan Bay, mechanical means were used exclusively until both sections of the ship were removed. The concentration of petroleum on the shores was so thick that direct pumping from the surface of the water recovered 45,000 gallons of petroleum per day. To ease the pumping operations, trenches were dug parallel to the shore line. The Change in tides and the wave action filled them with a mixture of crude and water. This operation was improved by skimming the petroleum from the approaching wave into the trench. The mixture was pumped into tanks mounted on trucks. The con- taminated mixture was taken to the nearby Caribbean Gulf Refining Corp., where it was processed. When the separators of the refinery filled beyond their processing capacity, the mixture was disposed in the San Juan city dump. The available conventional pumping equipment was initially used to extract the petroleum from thickly concentrated areas within the bay. The capacity of these pumps was adversely affected by the viscosity of the mixture, thus con- siderably reducing the rate of recovery. The method was greatly improved with the addition of a highly mobile 5,000 gallon-tank equipped with a vacuum pump. As the amount of petroleum floating in the water subsided, the pumps became ineffective and the operation was discontinued. In those beaches where a thin film of petroleum was floating in the water, other methods had to be used. Small plastic booms were dragged over the water by means of boats pulling from each end. An adsorbent was evenly distributed. along the center portion of the enclosure where the adsorbent came in contact with the petroleum. The crude floating on the surface was dragged to a locality on shore where extraction either by pumps or by men with buckets was possible. The application of the adsorbent along the coast by dumping powder from a small power boat over thin slicks proved to be very effective in the bathing areas of the coast. The adsorbent was allowed to float to the beach where it was col- lected manually by the beach maintenance crews. These crews were equipped with wiremesh baskets and rakes to pick-up the adsorbents and seaweed im- pregnated with petroleum. A wire-mesh sled was built to drag along the bottom of the sea shore for collecting the coagulated balls of petroleum. This sled was dragged parallel and perpendicular to the shoreline with the aid of a tractor. After raking the bottom several times with the sled, the sled was brought to shore where the contaminated material was collected. A catamaran type pdwer boat with a front loading scoop was constructed to skim the petroleum from the surface, of the water. The scoop was filled with fibers that adsorbed the crude. Although the use of this vessel proved to be sat- isfactory to collect the contaminated material and the petroleum, the utilization of the boat was limited to the waters of the San Juan Bay where a calm sea prevailed. Chicken-wire cylinders were filled with adsorbent fibers and used close to the shore to collect the petroleum. These cylinders were floated into the petroleum slicks and absorbed moderate quantities of the crude. They were not used ex- tensively because they were developed when the slicks were almost controlled. A locally produced adsorbent named Puramar was also used to collect the floating petroleum. This product consisted of treated vermiculite to produce a hydrophobic-oleophylic material. The Puramar was only used during the late stages of the operation since it was produced at a much later Oate. Mistron Vapor proved to be an excellent adsorbent for the finishing touches on the beaches. This product is talc that has been treated to produce a hydro- phobic-oleophylic material. Mistron Vapor was extensively used in the bathing areas. The Department is conducting an exueriment with a bio1o~ical method in a completely enclosed section in the San Juan Bay. The objective of this method PAGENO="0310" 302 is to degrade the petroleum by using bacteriological action. The Department of Health is currently preparing cultures to determine if the bacteria to be utilized are of a patogenous nature, for the protection of the public in any areas treated by this system. D. Treatment of petroleum on the beach The petroleum crude that reached the beach zone outside of the San Juan Bay, coated the sand and the rocky coasts with a thin layer of black-colored, paraffin- like substance that had lost most of the volatile fraction. This substance could be easily collected with hand shovels and scraped with wooden hand rakes. The Department decided to collect the contaminated material manually instead of mechanically to avoid the excessive extraction of sand from the beaches which are suffering cycles of erosion. However, 8,000 cubic meters of contaminated sand were extracted and wasted in the city dump. A labor force of 270 men worked 10 to 12 hours a day, seven days a week collecting manually the contaminated sand, the black paraffin-like substance, the impregnated adsorbents, and the contami- nated seaweed. These materials were grouped together into piles on the beach where a front loader picked them up and loaded 21/2-ton trucks. These trucks delivered the material to the city dump. A rake of cyclone fence wire was built to collect the seaweed and to smooth out the beach after cleaning. The accumulation of petroleum on the beaches of the San Juan Bay was so intensive that a depth of more than twleve inches of the sandy shores was con- taminated. On the sand surface the oily layer was up to six inches in thickness. This condition makes the reconditioning of these shores very difficult; the best method so far consisted of the removal of the contaminated sand, and its replace- ment by clean sand. The rocks exposed along the shoreline were cleaned with adsorbents, but this procedure was too expensive. Therefore, other means were tried. A kerosene flame thrower was used unsuccessfully to burn the petroleum. A waxy coating covered the rock after the flame was applied and the pores and joints of the rocks were sealed by this wax. The use of sand blasting was considered, but the cost prohibited tifis operation for general use. The use of detergents has been disregarded to clean the rocks because of difficulties in operation, toxicity pollu- tion problems, and high cost. In areas where detergents were used close to the beach, a quick-sand condition has developed along the shoreline. This situation has created the necessity to excavate and replace the sand with material borrowed from another beach. In some localities the sandy material was deposited deep in the ocean to determine if it could clean itself by wave action. Cost estimate.-The total cost of the operations performed by the Department can be summarized as follows: 1. Labor force (270 men) $106, 000 2. Rental of equipment 35, 500 3. Purchase of equipment 38, 000 4. Purchase of materials 51, 600 5. Payments of insurance 10, 900 0. Salaries (regular employees) 19, 200 7. Transportation costs 8, 000 8. Equipment (owned by department) 12,000 9. Miscellaneous 5, 000 Total cost (as of Apr. 15, 1968) 1286,500 1 Rounded to 285,000. The Governor has already assigned $250,000.00 from the emergency fund for these purposes, but the Department is requesting an additional $200,000.00 to continue the cleaning operation. It is estimated that final expenses of the De- partment will reach over the $500,000.00 mark. B. Activities of the other Commonwealth agencies The Secretary of Public Works coordinated the activities of all the other Corn- monweath Agencies. Their activities can be summarized as follows: 1. Piwrto Rico Ports Anthority.-The Authority assisted the Department of Public Works by providing transportation service with their patrol boats in the PAGENO="0311" 303 San Juan harbor. They also cooperated with the agencies involved in the ac- cident by allowing the use of their port facilities. 2. Departnsent of Jnstice.-The Department of Justice initiated an investiga- tion of the accident to determine who is liable for the expenses incurred by the federi~r1 and commonwealth agencies. A suit was filed in the San Juan Federal Court against the owners and insurors of the Ocean Eagle. 3. Department of Agricnltnre.-The fish and wild Life Division set up a refuse for a colony of 150 pelicans that were found in the swamps to the southeast of the San Juan Bay. A lanolin base detergent was used to clean the birds. Of the 150, 80 were sacrificed due to their poor conditions and 70 were treated and sent to the Humane Society. Of these only eleven survived. Also a survey of the pelican colony in the bay was conducted. The survey revealed that there were about 500 pelicans before the accident, but only 100 remained alive after the accident. The Division is also evaluating the effects of the detergents on marine life, but the results of this study is not yet available. At present, there is no fishing at the San Juan Bay, about 50 fishermen were affected by the disaster. Their boats and equipment were also ruined. These persons were provided with economic aid to compensate the damage of their equipment. 4. University of Puerto Rico.-The Department of Marine Sciences sent its staff of scientists to advise the commonwealth agencies. They set up a mobile laboratory of marine biology near the Condado beach area to conduct toxicity tests on the marine life. The SS (Jarite, the Oceanographic vessel of the U. P. R., was loaned to the Department of Public Works for the application of adsorbents in deep seas. A report of their activities was prepared and submitted to the Department of Public Works. 5. Puerto Rico Economic Development Administration-The Department of Tourism kept the Department of Public Works informed of the beaches affected by the petroleum near the hotels. They also instructed the hotel to follow the procedures established by the Department of Public Works to deal with the problem. 6. Parks and Recreation Administration.-The Administration assisted in the cleaning of the beaches under their jurisdiction and cooperated informing the Department of Public Works of those beaches affected by the slicks. 7. Department of Hcalth.-The Public Welfare Division provided aid with funds from the emergency budget to all those fishermen affected by the petroleum. Conclusions and Recommendations The accident of the Ocean Eagle seemed at first glance as a worse disaster than the accident of the Torrey Canyon off the coast of England last year. Although this vessel was carrying less cargo than the Torrey Canyon, its proximity to the coast and the fast split of the hull combined with the unfavorable weather con- ditions did not allow sufficient time for analyzing the problem. Fortunately, the final position of the bow to the west of the entrance channel considerably improved the situation. The rapid success of the salvaging and cleaning operations, just one month after the occurrence of the accident, can be attributed to the following factors: (1) the quick mobilization and close administrative coordination exercised by the Federal and Commonwealth agencies, (2) the fast scientific appraisal of the problem, (3) the unique locations of the bow and stern confining most of the petroleum spilled inside the harbor, and (4) the nature of the composition of the petroleum crude. The petroleum crude spilled by the Ocean Eagle had characteristics very dif- ferent from the Kuwait oil crude spilled by the Torry Canyon. The cargo of the Ocean Eagle consisted mostly of a paraffinic-bituminous base petroleum crude with a volatile fraction of only 32 percent. After 24 hours of exposure to the tropical sun light, the volatile portion had evaporated. This characteristic com- bined with the proximity of the hull to the shores ruled out the possibility of igniting the petroleum. The laboratory tests and the field experiences eliminated the use of detergents before the marine life was affected to a great extent. Adsorbents proved to be the most effective method of dealing with the problem under the present circum- PAGENO="0312" 304 stances. The best results were obtained with the following adsorbents: (1) Pura- mar 10, (2) Ekoperl 33, (3) Mistron Vapor, (4) Penetone, and (5) Polypropelane Fibers. Ekoperl was the most widely used adsorbent because it was available first, but the best results were obtained with Puramar 10. The most effective methods to apply these products were with the helicopter in nearly all situations and small power boats when the slicks were close to shore. The use of goggles and masks were necessary when applying the Ekoperl, since irritation of the eyes and throat could not be overcome without their use. The products had to be spread flying into the wind when using the helicopter. These powders were inhaled by the radiator of the helicopter if they were spread with the wind or in a stationary position. About 50 sacs of Ekoperl were applied in less than 20 minutes during each flight. A close-by base of operations w-as a pre- requisite to effectively use the helicopter. Vacuum pumps proved to be the best methods of extracting the petroleum directly from the surface of the water when it had concentrated in thick ponds. These pumps were able to recover 45,000 gallons of crude and water per day. These pumps required little maintenance and were only plugged-up by the dirt that they sucked. The use of mechanical means proved to be most effective in the collection of the contaminated material on the beaches. The use of adequate booms proved to be effective when skimming the petroleum in areas where cairn seas prevailed. Allowing nature to degrade the petroleum on the rocks seems as the most prac- tical way to solving this problem. The utilization of beach maintenance crews helped in keeping the removal of sand from the contaminated beaches as low as possible. Only 8,000 cubic meters of sand have been extracted. The removal of the petroleum from the beach as soon as possible seems advisable. This measure will reduce the possibilities of initiating an erosion cycle, the formation of a coquina (mixture of oil, shells, and sand), and the deposition of new sediments over the petroleum that will tend to bury it. The application of detergents close to the beach might cause quick-sand conditions requiring the excavation and replacement of this material. Also, the organism that live on the shore are adversely affected. Laboratory and field tests proved that the toxicity of the detergents are up to 30 times more harmful to marine life than the petroleum slicks. Greater control must be exercised over the treatments applied by private enterprises. The use of detergents in bathing areas worsened the conditions in these sites. A detailed knowledge of the weather, oceanographic, and geologic conditions of the area affected by the petroleum is required before corrective measures are undertaken. After the cause and reasons of the movement are determined, known measures and improvisations can be conducted. Scientific reasoning must be the base of any emergency plan. An unexpected change in the direction of the wind combined with the action of low tide, pushed the confined petroleum of the bay out to sea on March 19, 1968, when the beaches were practically clean. The beaches to the east of the entrance channel were once again contaminated. The sinking of the bow and stern about 8 miles offshore released again large quantities of petroleum which floated 60 miles west and landed on the beaches of Isabela. These problems could have been solved or minimized if sufficient knowledge of the weather and oceanographic conditions would have been available. A tremendous problem was created by the great quantity of salesmen that invaded the Department during the first week after the occurrence of the acci- dent. Since their respective products were unknown, laboratory tests were re- quired to evaluate their qualities. Meanwhile, a state of confusion reigned over the operations. An inventory of all the available tests should be prepared to properly and quickly inform the personnel dealing with these emergencies. An emergency plan should be prepared so that it can be easily adopted when an accident of this nature occurs. This plan should indicate the available personnel, equipment, materials, and products to deal with such an emergency. The re- sponsibilities and duties should be clearly stated so that no time is lost to initiate the operations. A brief outline of the procedures to be followed should be prepared. Adequate legislation taking the proper preventive measures should be approved. More control over the marine traffic should be exercised, if the reduction of these accidents is desired, especially over the construction of jumbo size tankers and "jumboizing" the smaller vessels. PAGENO="0313" 305 The port of San Juan should be improved to reduce the possibilities of having another accident of this nature. Although navigation through the channel was possible on the dawn of March 3rd, 1968, we cannot disregard the difficulty of entering the harbor. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. I strongly endorse Secretary Lizardi's recom- mendations and in particular the urgent need for acquiring greater scientific and technical know-how with which to combat the immediate effects of a massive marine oil spillage. The only practical defense against this kind of menace today rests in the hands of the scientists. It was a recognition of this fundamental fact that was a consideration in the introduction of my bill. It is important to clarify the liability of a vessel owner or operator. It is important to authorize the Federal Government to act immedi- ately to counteract the pollution threat. But a community afflicted with a massive maritime oil spillage is interested in only one thing. It is interested in cleaning up the mess as quickly and completely as possible. PUERTO RICO EXPERIENCE INDICATES COMMUNITIES UNPREPARED Based on Puerto Rico's experience, I believe that few maritime com- munities in the United States today are prepared to cope with an oil spillage of the Ocean Eagle's magnitude. And this 12,065-ton, 15-year- old ship was a small tanker by today's standards, to say nothing of to- morrow's standards. The reasons for this lack of preparedness are simple. First, the terms of the disaster dictate the terms of the response. And the terms are as changeable as the sea, the weather, the nature of the pollutant, and the situation. Secondly, we have found that there is today no single mechanical method or safe, effective, economical and stable chemical that a community can stockpile in advance and that will work under all circumstances. The ruptured tanks of the Ocean Eagle leaked nearly 3.5 million gallons of Venezuelan crude oil into the waters around San Juan dur- ing the month that the broken sections lay grounded at the harbor's entrance. Floating oil fouled the harbor and over 15 miles of resort beaches with a sticky, black, paraffinlike substance, ranging in thick- ness from a thin film to more than 6 inches deep in some places. The Ocean Eagle turned Puerto Rico into a laboratory for testing the common-and not so common-methods of pollution control: Pumping and skimming the oil from the surface, containing the spill with various floating booms, applying chemical dispersants, deter- gents, nontoxic absorbents, and even a special catamaran-type oil- skimming vessel. All of these methods were tried with varying degrees of success. The objective was to prevent the oil slick from reaching shore and, failing in this, to remove the sludge. Judging by the number of detergent salesmen who descended on San Juan, Federal and Commonwealth authorities must have tested nearly every known brand. Unfortunately, most of the products failed to be safe or effective. The use of detergents was discontinued when laboratory tests showed some to be as much as 30 times as harmful to marine life as the oil itself. Detergents, under the conditions found in Puerto Rico, also coagulated the petroleum into heavy balls which PAGENO="0314" 306 sank to the bottom near the shoreline. Beaches saturated with deter- gent.s tended to turn into qucksand. Attempts to clean oil-saturated rocks with a kerosene flame thrower were unsuccessful. By the time the oil had coagulated on the shores, it had lost its volatile agents and would not burn. Concentrations of oil slick were so thick in some places that 45,000 gallons a day could be pumped from the surfaces of the water. Non- toxic absorbents spread by helicopter and small boats also proved effec- tive. The oil-saturated absorbent was finally collected and trucked away for disposal. But the method is costly. A force of 270 men working 10 to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, was required to clean up the beaches. To add to their frustration, a shift in the weather brought oil that had floated out. to sea back again to blight the many newly cleaned beaches. The Commonwealth Department of Publc Works as of April 15 had spent $285,000 in cleaning operations. It is estimated that their final cost will run in excess of `half a million dollars. The cleanup campaign and the testing of new compounds is still going on, and some oil is still leaking from the sunken hulls. CONTINUING EFFECTS OF "OCEAN EAGLE" DISASTER The side effects of the Ocean Eagle pollution will be felt fof many months. The wreck, itself, curtailed ship traffic in San Juan Harbor for a time. Beaches from which oil-polluted sand was removed must be reconstructed. The Commonwealth Department of Agriculture believes that only 100 of a flock of 500 pelicans living in the San Juan Bay area have survived despite an intense effort to rescue and decontaminate oil-drenched birds. The effect of the oil and detergents on marine life is still under study. But San Juan Bay is closed to fish- ing. About 50 fishermen had their boats and equipment ruined by the oil and a program of economic assistance has been set up in their behalf. I have no figures on the total cost to participating Federal agencies: the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Last year, 3,350 vessels used San Juan Harbor. About 25 tankers a month are using the facilities. During slightly more than 4 years preceding the grounding of the Ocean Eagle, 11 vessels were involved in mishaps within and at the entrance to San Juan Harbor. At this point I should like to offer for the record a report concerning these events furnished my office by the U.S. Coast Guard. This is exhibit No. 2, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DORN. Yes. (Memorandum for Mr. Orville Watkins follows:) DDPARTMENP OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S. COAST GUARD, Washington, D.C., April 18, 1968. Memorandum for Mr. Orville Watkins, administrative assistant to Hon. Santiago Polanco-Abreu, House of Represensentatives, Washington, D.C. From: Commandant, U.S. Co~ist Guard. Subject: Marine casualties, San Juan; information concerning. 1. In response to your concern about marine casualties occurring in San Juan Harbor and at its entrance the following information is provided on casualties occurring there prior to the SS Ocean Eagle incident. PAGENO="0315" 307 a. M/V Oriental Venus (Liberian): While this freight vessel was inbound on 6 September 1967, she grounded at 2113 one mile northwest of the San Juan Har- bor entrance. The cause of the casualty was lack of local knowledge on the part of the master. When the master did not see the pilot boat, he decided to anchor. In maneuvering to do so, the vessel grounded. b. Rambank: No record of this casualty. An inquiry will be made to the OCMI, San Juan to ascertain the circumstances. c. M/V G~uadalupe (Spanish Registry) : While this passenger vessel was out- bound on 28 May 1966, she grounded at 0830 in the vicinity of Lighted Buoy No. 10, Anegado Channel, within the harbor. The cause of the casualty was confusion on the part of the helmsman due to both the master and pilot alternately giving order to the wheel. d. M/V Venus II (Dominican Registry) : While this freight vessel was in- bound on 15 December 1965, she grounded at 0925 in the vicinity of Lighted Buoy No. 7, Anegado Channel, within the harbor. The cause of the casualty was steering gear failure and when the master rang up full astern, the engineer on watch answered with full ahead. e. SS Loch Garth (British Registry) : While this freight vessel was inbound on 31 August 1964, she grounded at 0940 in the vicinity of Lighted Buoy No. 8, Anegado Channel, within the harbor. The cause of the casualty was the master's error in identification of the buoy. Because of bird droppings on Lighted Buoy No. 8, the master identified it as Lighted Buoy No. 5. There was no pilot on board the vessel at the time notwithstanding the fact that the vessel was 1,300 yards inside the harbor entrance. f. M/V Scandia (Danish): While this freight vessel was inbound on 3 June 1964, she grounded at 2317 in the vicinity of Buoy No. 8, Anegado Channel. within the harbor. The cause of the casualty was both the master's inability to locate Buoy No. 8 and the pilot not being on board. The pilots normally board inbound vessels within the harbor and the report indicates that the pilot boat is inadequate to venture outside in any, but the best of conditions. g. SS Alcoa Commander, 0. N. 248327: This casualty took place on 7 March 1964, near the Army Terminal 2.5 miles inside the harbor entrance and the cause was crowding by another vessel. h. SS Transcaribbean, 0. N. 247986: While this freight vessel was inbound on 1 May 1963, she grounded at 0145, 400 yards west of San Juan Harbor Lighted Buoy No. 2 just outside the harbor entrance. The grounding resulted in the total loss of the vessel. The cause of the casualty was the master's failure to fix the position of his vessel while the vessel was being set to the west. There was no pilot on board the vessel notwithstanding her proximity to the harbor entrance. i. SS San Juan, 0. N. 242653: This casualty took place on 11 February 1968, at the intersection of the Graving Dock Channel and the Army Terminal Channel approximately two miles inside the harbor entrance. The cause was restricted maneuvering room due to a dredge occupying a substantial part of the channel coupled with the size of the SS SAN JUAN. The vessel was inboard and there was a pilot on board. j. SS Catalina S (Briti~h Registry): While this vessel was outbound on 15 January 1963, she grounded at 2200 outside San Juan Harbor. The cause of the casualty was loss of the plant due to main and auxiliary feed pump failure. The vessel drifted into shallow water and the master failed to use his anchors. The casualty resulted in total loss of the vessel. k. Oil Barge: No record of casualty. It is hoped this information conveys a meaningful review of casualties in the area of San Juan Harbor. If the Coast Guard can provide any further assistance or if you wish to discuss this with me, it is our pleasure to suit your convenience. M. A. WHALEN, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of Staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION TO COPE WITH THREAT TO SHORELINE AREAS Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. The shipping traffic in San Juan Harbor is not great compared with major mainland ports. But with this rapid industrialization of Puerto Rico the threat of other "Ocean Eagles" also grows. The same is true for the shorelines which pass the "Jumbo" and "Supertankers." PAGENO="0316" 308 As we in Puerto Rico learned, it takes only one mistake to produce a pollution crisis. I am aware that the Federal agencies are searching for new products and methods of controlling pollution. But I believe that these efforts must be multiplied manifold before any port community can feel the slightest confidence about meeting a massive pollution threat. To summarize my views, the Ocean Eagle incident created severe pollution problems for San Juan Harbor and contaminated beaches as far as the western tip of the island. The final effect on marine life has not been ascertained. The oil spillage from this tanker proved that the stage of the art in dealing with this type of catastrophe is not sufficient to meet these problems. The threat of disasters to other tankers is continuous and is a concern to every shoreline community. Cleanup operations have to be undertaken without delay, and lia- bility for their costs should fix on the owner of the vessel, except in extraordinary circumstances. Research on a broad scale to prevent contamination and to decon- taminate should be pursued. The development of methods and systems of control is needed. New products to control pollutants without them- selves contributing to the pollution should be developed. A compre- hensive inventory of available chemicals and their characteristics should be compiled. In addition, there should be an inventory of local meteorological, oceanographic, and geological conditions on areas exposed to the threat of oil pollution accidents. Funds on a national level should be immediately available. A plan of action to deal with an oil poflution emergency should be ready and should detail the division of responsibility between various Federal and local authorities. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to send later, for the record, an account of the Ocean Eagle incident by the Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico. Mr. PORN. Without objection that will be included in the record. (The following was subsequently received for the hearing record:) UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO Rico, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE SCIENCES, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, April 29, 1968. HON. SANTIAGO POLANCO ABREU, Resident Commissioner, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. POLANCO ABREU: Enclosed please find a preliminary report of our activities during the Ocean Eagle disaster. I regret that you were unable to reach me by phone. I would have liked to have appeared before the House Com- mittee on Public Works. Should there be any doubts about the enclosed information, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, MAxIM0 J. CERAME-VIVAS, Director. REPORT BY DR. GRAHAM S. GIESE, PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHER I spent seven days in San Juan in connection with the petroleum problem. March 4-5 were spent primarily surveying the situation and acting as an advisor to personnel of Obras Publicas concerning the physical factors affecting the dis- tribution of the petroleum. March 11-12 were spent re-surveying the situation, PAGENO="0317" 309 observing the cleanup operations, and making initial tests of the effectiveness of the commercial product, Eko-Perl. The remainder of the week, March 13-15, was spent working with Obras Publicas personnel aboard the R. V. Carite: first making field tests of Eko-Perl and later treating petroleum patches offshore of the harbor with Eko-Perl. The following is a description of the distribution of the spilled petroleum as I observed it, together with a consideration of the factors affecting the distribu- tion: On the afternoon of March 4, the day following the break-up of the tanker Ocean Eagle. I first surveyed from the air the distribution of the spilled oil. A three-part pattern which was to continue development during the following two weeks was already apparent at that time. Part of the oil spilled from the broken tanker at the entrance of San Juan Harbor was working its way into the harbor. During the following weeks a great deal of petroleum found its way into the harbor. Although it reached all parts of the harbor to some extent, including the Cane de San Antonio to the northeast, it was chiefly driven to the southwest by the prevailing northeasternly winds which caused large amounts of petroleum to accumulate along the shore at, and to the north and west of, Catano. Another portion of the petroleum viewed from the air on March 4 had worked eastward along the coast. This material was transported by the alongshore cur- rents resulting from the breaking of large swells generated by a storm in the Atlantic Ocean northwest of Puerto Rico. It is char~tcteristic of such currents that their effects are limited to the zone of breaking waves and although the petroleum, which moved along shore to the east, considerably disturbed the tourist holtels along this shore, no great amounts of oil were transported by this means. During the next several days following the accident, the storm swells approach- ing from the northwest gradually diminished and the eastward transport of the petroleum ceased. During an observation flight on March 11, I saw very little oil east of Boca de Cangrejos and most of that which remained had been washed ashore. The third portion of the escaped petroleum which was visible from the air on the afternoon of March 4 had worked offshore and somewhat to the west. A plume extended north from the harbor and another of Ensenada de Boca Vieja just east of Punta Salinas. These patterns presumably resulted from the tidal flushing of the harbor together with westward transport by the local northeast winds. This portion of the spilled oil posed a far greater threat than that which contaminated the already-polluted harbor or that small amount which had moved alongshore to the east. A week later, on March 11, I found that the plume off the harbor mouth extended several miles offshore, while long thin fingers of the oil spread back southwesterly from the plume, extending shoreward as far west as Punta Salinas. These streaks were apparently driven by the northeasterly winds. On~ SPILL STUDY BY JOHN ZEIGLER My participation in the oil spill study was primarily advisory. I attended meetings at Obras Publicas and expressed my opinion when it was asked for. I also talked about all phases of the operation with Pedro Gelabert and Sr. Cruz Perez. Of a specific nature I looked for some w-ay to obtain a cheap scavenging ma- terial, particularly bagasse. The first experiments using bagasse by Mr. Scott failed because he used wet bagasse. We dried some and found that it w-ould collect oil if placed directly on it but that it also collected water. I spoke with Dr. Gob- berg about treatment of bagasse to make it hydrophobic and he said it should be easy to do. At any rate we did not press the use of bagasse because it was decided to use ecoperl. I continue to believe bagasse would work and be cheaper. I also was interested in the use of floating booms to keep oil from spreading onto specific areas. The booms I saw being used were working remarkably well. Out of this disaster has grown my conviction that a major study of the long- shore currents around Puerto Rico would be directly beneficial to the Common- wealth. The oil moved in directions along the coast opposite to the offshore pre- vailing set of the currents. These longshore currents move any kind of pollutant which gets in them. PAGENO="0318" 310 Subject: Report re: Cruise C-68-4, of MRV Carite. To: Dr. Máximo J. Cerame-Vivas, Dept. of Marine Science, GAAM. From: Capt. Felix, MRV Carite. Tue. 5 Mar. 68, 1500 hrs. Captain notified that the Carite was to depart im- mediately for San Juan harbor for work in relation to tanker "Ocean Eagle" disaster. At 1600 hours 5 Mar. 68 Captain arrived at vessel and began preparation for trip from Parguera, P.R. to San Juan harbor. Wed. 6 Mar. 68 from 0700 hours to 1355 hours, the labor force at M'agueyes Is- land, field station of Dept. of Marine Science, CAAM, assisted the vessels two man crew in loading equipment and supplies aboard. At 1355, 6 Mar. 68, vessel was cast off for Guayanilla bay, to take aboard 600 gals diesel fuel and 40 gal lube oil and 35 lbs. grease. At 1825 hrs. 6 Mar. 68, refueling was completed and vessel de- parted Guayanilla for Ponce. The Carite arrived at Ponce at 2025 hours and anchored for the night NNE of Ponce Dock. Thur. 7 Mar. 68 0600 hrs. weighed anchor for San Juan, sea was choppy and small craft warnings up. At 2040 hours vessel had arrived in San Juan harbor and was anchored for the night on S. Side of channel in small craft anchorage area. Fri. 8 Mar. 68. Vessel was made fast to wharf area on south side small craft anchorage to facilitate loading, unloading and visiting. At 0730 hrs. Dr. M. Cerame visited vessel to check equipment and orientate crew as to work to be expected. Ait 0015 hrs. Mr. R. Kieth Stewart, USD1, Fed. Water Pollution Control Adm., 5555 Ridge Ave., Cinc., Ohio, 45213, was taken by the deck hand in the bay area to do work in relation to the petroleum spill. At 1200 hrs. Mr. Stewart returned to Garite and released small boat and deck hand. The captain during the entire day made a number of small repairs on the main engine, finishing at 1700 hrs. Sat. 9 Mar. 68. Crew of boat, consisting of Captain and one deckhand, remained aboard on stand by as had been requested. On this date the small maintenance jobs continued on the boat. At 1115 hrs. the following guests came aboard; R. Kieth Stewart, USD1, Fed. Water Pollution Control, John B. Glude, Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries, Jack Pierce and Larry Ogren, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries, Herbert and Sheila Austin, Inst. Marine Science, CAAM. From 1210 hrs. to 1515 hours two hauls were made with Otter Trawl in area N. of Cataflo and several dredgings for sediments were made in the area of the Coast Guard pier. All guests left the vessel at 1515 except Pierce and Ogren who worked aboard until 1815 hrs. Sun. 10 1\Iar. 68: Crew working aboard. Dr. Cerame end Jose Gonziilez bor- rowed tender holly from 1530 to 1715 hrs. Mon. 11 Mar. 68: At 1030 boat was prepared to depart for Parguera. At 1205 Dr. Giese and Zeigler visited for 15 minutes. At 1335 Dr. Cerame visited and re- quested delay of departure pending use by Obras Publicas in control of the oil slick. 1715 Dr. Giese and Mr. Anderson, Engr., visited boat. 2145 hrs. Dr. Cerame, Giese and Eger visited boat. Orders were to remain and work for Obras Püblicas on 12 Mar. 68. Tue. 12 Mar. 68. From 1520 hrs. to 1815 boat was working on oil slicks. Aboard were: Wm. Eger, John Glude, Roif Juhi, Robt. C. Scott, Graham Giese, Jose A. Gonz'i lez, Jo~eph P. Sharken, H. Schneider, Hamilton Ramfrez, Roberto Diaz, Pedro Gelabert, Manuel Ayala, C. R. Isaac, Joseph Andrades. Wed. 13 Mar. 68: 0715 Obras Püblicas loaded boat with sacks of perlite (Ekoperl 33). At 0720 cast off for oil slicks outside sea buoys at El Morro. 0930 returned to dock. Boat loaded again: Dr. Giese sent to clinic due perlite dust in eye. At 0935 cast off for Puerto Neuvo area. Was spreading perlite in Puerto Nuevo Channel area when boat ran hard aground due to dust obscuring vision. 1235 was pulled off shoal by coast guard launch. 1250 made fast to dock again. 1300 to 1330 Dr. Giese and Dr. Cerame visited boat. Mr. H. RamIrez planned work in area off Levittown on 14 Mar. 68. Thur. 14 Mar. 68: 0800 Dr. Giese aboard. 1040 boat completely loaded with perlite. Lisbeth Hyman and Bernardino Feliciano, Geologists, Obras Püblicas, aboard with 3 laborers. At 1045 cast off; could find no oil `outside harbor. 1300 docked again. 1725 to 1730 visited by Mr. Hamilton Ramlrez and Pedro Gelabert, Obras Piiblicas `and Mr. Edmond P. Lomasney, FWPOA, SE Region, 1421 Peach- tree St. NE, Atlanta, Ga., 30309., regarding further use of Carite. Fri. Mar 68: Departed at 0647 hrs., with Dr. Giese, Liz Hyman and Mr. Feliciano and 2 laborers aboard. Proceed to Point NNE El Morro 4 mi, thence off PAGENO="0319" 311 Pt. Salinas, then returned to bay due to heavy seas precluding any work. Docked at 1000 hrs. Dr. Giese aboard at 1300 to 1330 again.. 1700 hrs. Dr. Giese returned to boat with pickup truck driven by Marcos. Equipment to be returned to Magueyes was loaded at this time. 2200 hrs. Left Dr. Giese off at airport. Arrived Parguera 2330 hrs. and departed for Mayaguez. Sat. 16 Mar. 68: No one aboard. *;` Sun. 17 Mar. 68: 2130 Capt. came aboard. Mon. 18 Mar. 68: No work done in relation to oil slick. Crew and 2 men stood by with boat loaded. Tues. 19 Mar. fl8: No work done this date. Standing by. Wed. 20 Mar. 68: 1405 H. Liz Hyman, Geologist, Obras Pfibilieas, and 5 laborers boarded. At 1420 cast off and proceeded to an oil slick area appx. 2.5 ml., north of the Condado Hotel Area. Spread 126 bags perlite directly on slick. Slick was about 2 ml long and 300' to 500' wide, runMng on tide line E and W. Returned to dock 1645 hrs. All Obras Pflblicas people ashore. Thur. 21 Mar. 68: MRV Carite and Crew departed San Juan 0845 hrs. and arrived Mayaguez 1915 hrs., same date. Remarks 1. Vessel and crew were on standby basis 24 hours daily aboard the vessel except for Sat 16 Mar. and Sun. 17 Mar. 68. 2. Considerable damage was done to rubbing strips on both sides vessel due to inadequate dock. 3. Upper hull paint needs completely repainted due oil. 4. Both safety rails loose due to dock. 5. Three life preservers are missing. 6. $300.00 worth of rope was.damaged by petroleum. 7. One small anchor missing. 8. One carpenter hammer lost overboard. Subject: Report of Observations During Cruise 4-68. To: Dr. M. Cerame Vivas. General: The first and only really good test of the perlite dust on an oil slick was on Wed. 20 Mar. 68. Accompanied by Liz Hyman, geologist, Obras Publicas, cast off at 1420 hrs. and found an oil slick about 2.5 miles off the Condado Hotel section-directly north. This petroleum slick was approximately 2 miles long and 300' to 500' wide. Its formation was in an East and West direction parallel with the beach and meandered with the tide line. The petroleum was generally, fairly well concentrated, very thick and very heavy viscosity. There was no emulsification although there were small blobs floating independently of the main areas. The petroleum was held in formation on the tide/line in the same way floating debris is held. Wind was from ENE at 15 to 18 mph. Sea swell was 4' to 6' and very few white caps. One hundred and twenty-six bags of perlite were dumped directly on the oil as boat proceeded at a speed of .2 to 6 mph. This application was then spread by wave action. The layer of dust in contact with the sea surface was held by the water and oil while the upper layer slid off, contimiing to grow larger and larger in area as the layer became thinner due to this sliding action caused by the waves. This precluded the neces- sity of running the boat over the dust to mix it as was the case in the calm water inside the bay. The light colored perlite dust turned a dark brown as it began to pick up the petroleum. After the complete load of 126 sacks had been spread a few passes over the area were made to observe the effects. The perlite apparently cleaned up the a:rea thoroughly where applied. Remaintn~ was an opalescent oil film which it seems that the perlite failed to hold. This was a very thin film of oil. 1Jn~ortunately only 126 sacks were aboard. This oil slick area could have been effectively covered with 300 to 350 sacks. PAGENO="0320" 312 Criticism 1. A primary criticism of the operation was the lack of communications be- tween airborne observers and surface craft hunting oil slicks. a. C. B. Radios with similar crystals could have eliminated this situation completely. 2. A second fault was the apparent lack of a definite preconceived plan of operation, e.g. a. The equipment required. b. Number of men required. c. Base of operations. d. A coordinator available at all times. e. Orientation of personnel involved as to what was to be done when and how. Recommendation Due to the expanding petrochemical industry in Puerto Rico and St. Croix I recommend as an extremely important step the following: A study of winds, currents and natural features and phenomena of this area be made. It is a fact that there are no current charts of inshore waters around Puerto Rico existing today. To effectively control a petroleum spill one must be able to predict accurately the course of the spilled oil, its speed of travel over the surface and the effects upon it of various combinations of conditions of wind, weather, tides, currents and temperature. This is not now known which was quite apparent in the operation involving the Ocean Eagle. Spills occurring approxi- mately 15 miles offshore can be predicted as to travel, etc., and a fairly good plot of their travel made as there is a fair amount of information available re- garding the most influential elements. A result of such a study should result in some of the following: 1. What means of control would be most effective in a given location. 2. What means of control would be most effective under various combinations of conditions of sea and weather. 3. What materials and equipment will be required under the various combina- tions of conditions in the various areas. 4. What materials and equipment and in what quantities should be kept avail- able by what agencies for such contingencies. 5. What agencies should be available for what job. 6. The funds for such a preconceived plan should be made available prior to necessity. It is my opinion that, if we are to preserve at least in part, the beauty and present resources of the island, studies of the various effects and causes and their prevention and control should be made now. It is quite obviously too late to begin after a disaster to decide what to do. We have had a slight experience with the Ocean Eagle. In the San Juan area, the most important thing to do is to widen the harbor entrance at Punta del Morro, deepen the channel, eliminate the dog leg course in and out and establish sea buoys slightly further outside those now existing. A means of eliminating passing situations entering and leaving the harbor is extremely important. All ships awaiting pilots should, by local law, be required to leave-to much further off than is now the practice. On the south coast, studies of all these problems are also indicated a~ numerous critical conditions exist these also. The incident of the tub boat "Coral" was an indication of one such existing Logard. Should this have been a petroleum vessel the marine life in and about Parguera would have been irreparably damaged. RESIJME OF Ac'rIvITIEs REGARDING "OcEAN EAGLE" BY WILLIAM H. EGER March 6.-Arrived in San Juan late afternoon with Drs. Maximo Cerame and William Maddux (Dept. Marine Sciences, UPR). Arrangements for accommoda- tions. March 7.-Help set up mobile laboratory and acquire aquaria supplies for bioassay experiments. Conferred with Mr. Keith Stewart (Robert A. Taft Sani- tary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio). Examination of extent of oil pollution in San Juan harbor in vicinity of U.S. Coast Guard installation with Dr. Cerarne and Mr. Stewart. Observation of marine life killed in vicinity of La Puntilla. PAGENO="0321" 313 Collection of detergent samples with Mr. Stewart, from those brands in use at that time. With Dr. Cerame, conferred with Coast Guard officials, especially regarding the use of detergents. Begin bioassay experiments on fish, continuing through the night with the assistance of Drs. Cerame, Maddux and graduate assistants Mr. and Mrs. Herb Austin. March 8.-Continuation of bioassay experiments. Survey of damage in Condado lagoon and Punta El Boqueron area. Advisory meeting with Department of Public Works. March 9.-Return to Mayaguez to teach Ichthyology class. March .10--Return to San Juan. Continue bioassay experiments with assistance of graduate assistants John Rees, Manuel Hernhndez and Andrew Rehm. March 11.-Conduct field test on the affect of leaching of oil from absorbants. Aerial reconnaisance with Dr. Graham Giese and Mr. Manuel Herntindez. With advice and assistance of Drs. John Ziegel and Graham Giese, the leaching experi- ments were expanded to include the effect of the natural surf on the absorbants after saturation with oil. March 12.-With the assistance of Mr. Jose Gonzalez, a survey of San Juan harbor was made to determine the extent of marine life damage. Water samples were collected at various stations. Assist Mr. Hamilton Ramirez (Dept. Public Works) during observation of field tests from RV Carite on the effectiveness of the absorbants Ekoperl and bagasse. Return to Mayaguez. DETERGENT BIOASSAY STUDIES ON FISH Considcration s Because of the immediate need for preliminary results on which to base intelli- gent counsel, these experiments were generally not conducted for more than 18 hours for any one test, except where indicated. All tests, except one (the 27 p.p.m. series) were conducted at the Dept. of Marine Sciences temporary mobile labora- tory on Condado. The 27 ppm. (parts per million) series was conducted at the Dept. of Marine Sciences laboratory at La Parguera using identical species of fish. The fish used were all collected from the Condado Lagoon except those of A budcfdu/ sawatilis which were collected near Boca de Cangrejos. The sea water used in these experiments was collected at Boca de Cangrejos, where it was thought to be relatively free of contamination from oil or detergents. The tem- perature during the experiments ranged from 71-79° F. Control mortalities ranged from 0% to not more than 15% for the exposure times indicated in the table. Rcsuits Reference to the table indicates that all the detergents tested expressed toxicity. The toxicity is expressed in terms of percent mortality and percent loss of bal- ance for various concentrations over exposure periods of at least 6, 12 and 18 hours. During the testing, observations were made as to abnormal behavior, change in respiration rate (ventilation), and ability to recover after exposure. Loss of balance is considered when fish no longer can right themselves due to the effect of the detergent. All detergents showed toxic affects on the fish at the lowest concentrations tested. Where death or loss of balance did not occur, there was observed varying degrees of stress apparently caused by the detergents. In seine cases there was noted a species-dependent sensitivity. Conclusions 1. These bioassay tests were, in effect, attempting to determine the toxicity on adult fish after limited periods of exposure to detergents. The adult stage does not represent the most sensitive or critical period of the fishes life cycle. Knowl- edge is badly needed regarding the long-term effect on all stages of the life cycle before we can intelligently determine the potential damage caused by adding foreign matter to the environment. In order to eliminate experimental variables caused by keeping animnis in captivity in the laboratory, routine bioassays are usually run for a period of 48 to 96 hours. This is thought to be a minimum standard to estimate toxicity and to also provide a better standard for comparison of results. 04-376-G8-----21 PAGENO="0322" 314 Substance tested Species tested Parts per 6 hours 12 hours 18 hours 24 hours million Polycomplex A-li E.a 1 Do Ass Do E.a Do E.a Do..... A s Do H.c.~ Do E.a Do A.s Do A.sa4 Janslov-60 A.s Do A.s Do E.a Do A.s Hemco No.2 A.s Do E.a Do E.a Do A.s Muratti E.a Do E.a Do E.a Do E.a Product-20215 E.a Mangus E.a Crude oil E.a Ekoperl E.a Do A.sa Pevatone E.a Do A.sa Minstron E.a 100 100 (100) 100 100 (100) 27 57(71) 100 (100) 10 33(33) 33(33) 33(33) 10 0 (0) 33 (33) 33 (33) 5 0 (0) 0 (75) 0 (75) 5 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 100 100 (100) 50 100 (100) 27 100 (100) 10 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 100 100 (100) 50 0(30) 60(86) 86(100) 100 (100) 27 100 (100) 10 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 100 70 (100) 100 (100) 50 100 (100) 27 0 (0) 14 (29) 43(43) 85(85) 10 8 (8) 17 (25) 17 (42) 25 (58) 27 29 (29) 29 (29) 57(57) 57 (57) 27 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 50 0 (0) 15 (15) 30 (30) 30 (30) 500 0(10) 10 (10) 10 (10) 10 (10) 500 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,000 100 (100) 500 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,000 100 (100) 1 Eucinostomus argenteus-moharra. 2 Atherinomorus stipes-silversides. 3 Herangula clupeola-herring. 4 Abudefduf saxatilis-sergeant major. The results of the above experiments should, therefore, be viewed as expressing the very minimum in terms of toxicity. Thus, these same detergents would show equivalent toxicities at smaller concentrations (ppm) if the tests were run for the standard 48 or 96 hours. Even for the 18 hour tests there is seen a high level of toxicity. 2. Detergents usually consist of many substances forming a complex mixture. Different products use differing amounts of solvent (s) as a base for the mixture. Test concentrations are prepared from the concentrated product as it is sold on the market. This is considered to be a 100% solution and test dilutions are pre- pared accordingly. Because the different products contain widely varying per- centages of solvents and because the solvents of each one product may vary con- siderably in toxicity, it is very difficult to accurately compare any two products. To circumvent this problem, it would be necessary to analyze each component of a given product independently as well as in its various combinations. This approach would be especially difficult because many ingredients of commercial detergents are considered trade secrets. 3. From a practical use standpoint, different detergents should not only be compared in terms of toxicity but also in terms of their relative effectiveness as a dispersent or emulsifier. Caution must be used here also since it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of a detergent. Also, one a substance (eg. oil) is emulsified or dispersed, the oil itself may display new and different toxic effects on living systems which in an unemulsified state are not as apparent. 4. It is hoped that the above three considerations will be recognized as im- portant ones before the use of detergents is proposed. There is a real need for research in this area so that we may be prepared to cope most effectively with future problems such as that posed by the Ocean Eagle disaster. ABSORBANT STUDIES Absorbing ability Of the three products tested, Ekoperly and Pevatone appeared to be each initially as effective, while Minstron was less so. Pevatone, however, seemed to absorb most of the oil on the outside of its relatively large particles whereas Ekoperl, being more granular, seemed to allow much of the oil to diffuse into the granules. Minstron, with its very small particles, proved least effective since it did not form a stable complex with the oil. PAGENO="0323" 315 Leaching ability When the three oil-soaked products were placed in the sun on white paper or on sand, it was seen that oil had leached from all three absorbants. On an approximate volume basis it seemed that Minstron had lost the most oil while Ekoperl and Pevatone each lost about equal smaller amounts. Pevatone seemed to me to be potentially less effective than Ekoperl because most of the oil taken up adhered to the outside of the large particles allowing oil to come off readily when contact was made with any other material. This would, perhaps, make it more difficult to gather the Pevatone and would probably result in some recontamination with oil on sand, rocks, boats, etc. Field tests were also made on the extent of leaching due to the action of waves on the beach. Both Pevatone and Ekoperl were tested and while oil leached off of both products, comparative results proved inconclusive. Toceicity Studies of Absorbants Compare to the detergents, all absorbants tested were considerably less toxic. Since Ekoperl appeared to be the least toxic absorbant, and also the most effec- tive in absorbing oil, it was the product recommend for use. FIaLD OB5ERVATION5 OF F1511E5 On March 12, 9 days after the grounding of the Ocean Eagle, a two hour survey by small boat was made of part of San Juan Bay. The area covered ex- tended along the shoreline from the San Antonio Channel south around Isla Grande to the J. F. Kennedy bridge; then ~vest and north to Punta Cataflo. During this period the following fishes were found dead: 15 Opisthonenta oglinum-arenque, sardina 7 Trichiurus leptura-machete 6 Gobioides braussonneti-gobido 2 Centengraulis sp.-anchoa 1 Sphyraena barracuda~-picua brava 1 Polydactylus virginicus-barbudo 1 Mugil curenuz-jarea 1 Chioroscoimbrus chrysurus-casabe In addition, during this same period, the following fish were observed in a state of stress: Sardinella anchovia-sardina, cascarua Strongyiura sp.-agujon. A few small schools of live Opisthonema ogiinum~ were observed. Several fish in the school appeared to show evidence of lesions on the dorsum resulting in patches where the tissue underlying the skin could be seen. There were a greater number of fish of this species seen under the puente G. Esteves in the San Antonio Channel. The water here was relatively clear compared to the rest of San Juan Bay; probably because there is a good exchange of clearer water coming in from the NE via de Balneario Condado. 2. On March 22, 19 days after the grounding of the Ocean Eagle I observed very large schools of OpistlioJu3rna oglinum among the docks of the Club Nautico. The number of fish present was estimated to have been over 100,000. Based on photographs and sampling of the population, it is estimated that there was at least a 95% incidence of fish with abnormal lesions. The fish were in varying stages of stress, with many of them showing abnormal swimming behavior, loss of balance, and death. Examination of these fishes showed that some of the lesions had progressed to such an extent that the vertebras, ribs or viscera were exposed. The internal anatomy revealed a general deterioration of tissue. A small percent (less than 5) of those fish infected, showed some signs of healing and regeneration of tissue around the lesions. At the present time, the causative agent responsible for these gross lesions is not known. Possibilities being considered at present are: 1. Effect by a toxic component of oil from the Ocean Eagle. 2. Effect by a toxic component of one or more detergents used in clean-up operations during the Ocean Eagle disaster. 3. Effect caused by a fungus or bacteria. It is possible that a component from either the oil or one or more detergents caused a disruption of natural. protective skin mucus lining or scales, thereby allowing infection to spread. to the underlying tissues. This problem is presently being examined. This. fish is of particular concern because it is the prime bait fish used by fisher- men in the area. 3. The ten species of fish observed to have been either killed or adversely affected, probably due to the Ocean Eagle disaster, undoubtedly represent only a fraction of the total fish that ultimately were damaged. Of these ten species, nIne are of direct commercial importance. PAGENO="0324" 316 PAGENO="0325" 317 PAGENO="0326" 318 GAPS IN LEGISLATION Mr. CRAMER. I do not know whether the legislation before us at the present time, is the answer to the problem. Perhaps the gentleman, if he wishes, would like to comment on it. In the first place, the remedy is against the ship. It is not nmch of a remedy if the ship is sunk. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. May I refer this question to my administrative assistant. Mr. WATKINs. My name is Orville Watkins. I am administrative assistant to Commissioner Polanco-Abreu. I would think the remedy would have to go beyond the ship, it would have to go to the owners of the ship who would presumably have more resources than the ship itself. Mr. DORN. Speak up just a little bit, please. Mr. WATKINS. Does that answer your question, sir? Mr. CRAMER. Also, I wonder what happens in the situation where you have a ship that was sunk in World War II. Some of the oil Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Commissioner, for a very excellent statement. Any questions of the committee members? Mr. CRAMER. I have a couple. Mr. DORN. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I am very interested in this problem. Mr. DORN. Mr. Cramer represents the Caribbean area. He is from Florida. PAGENO="0327" 319 might cause pollution when the ship rusts out or what-have-you, corrodes out? A number of those are off the coast of the United States, a number of them off the cost of Florida, and a number of them are off the coast of New Jersey. Mr. POLANCO-ABREIT. That is true. Mr. CRAMER. As I gather, t.his bill does not cover that situation. Mr. WATKINS. That is correct, sir. Perhaps the Committee might want to take that into consideration in drafting what I suppose would be an omnibus bill to correct this situation. Mr. CRAMER. Likewise, as I understand the bill, if you do not know the cause-that is, if you have not found the culprit-then there is no remedy at all. Mr. WATKINS. That would appear so. And I would think that the Federal Government, in that case, might have made arrangements to do the cleaning, to repair damage, and to decontaminate. Mr. CRAMER. Well, talking about setting up revolving funds, and these recoveries. Mr. WATKINS. Right, sir. Mr. CRAMER. But the uses of the recoveries fund itself are very limited. And it seems to me this Hawaii situation-they do not know what caused that-so there would be no remedy for the Hawaiian present beach contamination problem. Mr. WATKINS. In that event I would think that the revolving fund could bear the cost of the cleaning up operations. Mr. CRAMER. So it just seems to me that the bill does not have an application to many of these problems that now exist or may come into existence. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PORN. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. Any further questions of the gentlemen? Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I want to thank you gentlemen from Puerto Rico for appearing before the committee. He always makes a very fine presentation. JURISDICTION ON THE HIGH SEAS I wonder if it would be possible for you or your administrative assistant to direct yourself to the question of jurisdiction, how to handle matters of this type in those areas that are beyond the 3- or 12- mile limitation. Now, this gets into the question of international law and not only do we have problems that deal with pollution but there are many other problems for those of us that represent coastal congressional dis- tricts, and of course you are in this category. I wonder if you feel that this might be taken up through the Organization of American States, hopefully to develop a position to extend the limitation of our Continental Shelf, or something like this. Could you direct your- self to this? Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Yes. Mr. DORN. If you do not have the answer right with you, you can always present it for the record later. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Even though I am a lawyer I am not a specialist in international law, but I would be willing to study this PAGENO="0328" 320 part and submit a further statement in regard to this interesting question. The problem that you raise, it is a crucial one. ~11:. CLAUSEN. Well, the gentleman and I have had some conversation 111 this regard, and I am hopeful that the Congress and the proper coin- mittees will give this particular problem the attention that I think it deserves, conservation of all matters. On the WTest Coast of California, we have peoPle coming in and, in fact, destroying whatever conserva- tion investment we have in fishery resources and that kind of thing. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. I perfectly agree with you gentlemen. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLAIJSEN. I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman. Mr. CRAMER. I just want to comment on the same subject. There is in existence an International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu- tion of the Sea by Oil and they have entered into agreements pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 and this involves a 50-mile offshore jurisdiction by agreement, and 100 miles off the coast of New Jersey, north to the Canadian border. So that this perhaps also helps answer the question of the 12-mile limit. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. And it indicates that action is being taken in this field. And I think it would be well to place this memorandum in the record following the gentleman's testimony. Mr. PORN. Without objection it will be included. (The memorandum follows:) EXACT FROM MEMORANDUM In accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu- tion of the Sea by Oil, the Oil Pollution Act of 1061, 33 U.S.C. 1001-1015, prohibits discharge of oil or oily mixtures by seagoing ships of American registry, including tankers of over 150 gross tons and other ships of over 500 gross tons. This pro- hibition extends to a distance out to fifty miles off most coastal areas of the United States and out to 100 miles off the coast of New Jersey north to the Cana- dian border. Foreign vessels subject to the Convention that violates its provisions is prohibited zone areas off the United States lying outside the territorial waters of the United States are reported to the flag government through diplomatic chan- nels.. American vessels are subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $500, and persons who violate provisions of the Act are subject to the same fine, or to imprisonment, not exceeding one year, or to both. Mr. CLAUSEN. I thank the gentleman for adding that to the record, because I think it will be helpful. Mr. CRAMER. You might include this map too that indicates what the territorial agreement mileage is. Mr. PORN. So ordered. Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I want to express to you lily personal thanks for your assistance when I was recently in Puerto Rico. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Thank you very much. RESPONSIBILITY IN CASE OF OIL SPILLAGE Mr. MCEWEN. Yesterday, Mr. Commissioner, we had as a witness before this committee, Vice Admiral Trimble, of the Coast Guard. He PAGENO="0329" 321 gave very interesting testimony concerning the Ocean Eagle incident at San Juan. One of the things we were interested in, quickly, yesterday, as this testimony developed, was the question of responsibility in the case of one of these spillages. You, sir, have spoken to that subject here. It involves a number of State and local agencies. Now, as Admiral Trimble's testimony developed on this incident in the San Juan harbor, the Coast Guard immediately had, one, a rescue operation to be performed, and then, number two, a mission for the safety of the harbor. And it occurred at least to this one member, possibly the Coast Guard might be the agency, being No. 1, at the scene, the agency of the Federal Government most frequently found in coastal areas all over the country, might be the agency to assume the overall responsibility- not that there would not be need, of course, to bring in people from Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, all sorts of exper- tise, as you have mentioned. I would be interested, Mr. Commissioner, in your comments on that, as to whether you feel there is a need for clear responsibility in some one department or agency to coordinate the efforts of all. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Well, as far as I am concerned, I think that the Coast Guard should be the one that should be responsible in these cases. Mr. MOEWEN. I am interested in your observations. Thank you. Mr. PORN. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the Com- missioner for a very incisive statement on this problem, which seems to be growing in intensity. ATTITUDE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY I just would like to observe, when I first came down here, I was rather dismayed at the attitude of industry in general toward pollu- tion control. And I have been very pleased with the shift in attitude. For instance, the steel industry, which for a long time opposed pollu- tion control legislation, came down here recently and actually testified in favor of our bills. And they have been a very constructive attitude, taking ads in the national magazines, and I know up our way the steel industry and other industries are really moving forward in a vigorous way. I have not perceived this yet in the oil industry. They have made efforts, one, to weaken the Oil Pollution Act a couple of years ago, and to remove the excise tax on oil. But no vigorous support for any pollution control. One of the results of the removal of the excise tax is that drained crankcase oil is virtually worthless, so in Buffalo, where we have what Murray Stein, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra- tion, called the most polluted river in the world, Buffalo River, the most substantial is oil pollution and much of this is from the ordinary gas station which now in most instances simply flushes this drained PAGENO="0330" 322 crankcase oil into the Buffalo sewer system ai~d then, of course, it goes into the Buffalo River. Now, they are concocting a program in Buffalo to cope with this. But the massive nature of it is such that it does not seem to me that it is going to get any place until this industry begins to police itself. And I would hope that perhaps they could follow the lead of such progressive industries as the steel industry and the paper industry, and others, who have had long-standing problems with this, and take a constructive attitude. It seems to me that the principle is established, at least it is admitted in many industries, that this is an industrywide problem. And that the costs should go into the product. Actually the consumer is going to pay for pollution abatement. But to resist these measures I think would be very negative and would not be in keeping with the construc- tive and progressive attitude that is displayed by so many industries. But thus far it has not been displayed by the oil industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DORN. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. You can just submit anything additional for the record, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you very much. Now, there is not a more devoted member of this committee than Mr. McEwen, from New York. I am going to ask Congressman McEwen to present to the committee our next witness. Mr. MOEWEN. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. David Knowlton, who is president of Knowl- ton Brothers Paper Co. I might say it is th:e third oldest paper com- pany in America. They have been in c~peration in the present location for over a century and a half. Mr. Knowlton is also a director of the American Paper Institute, and more immediately appears here today as chairman of the Ameri- can Paper Institute's Air and Water Resources Committee. Mr. Knowlton is an old friend of this committee. Dave, it is nice to see you here before this committee. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, what he has to tell us today will be most helpful. THE ~`WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 19G8" STATEMENT OF DAVID C. KNOWLTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE AIR AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE, AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE; ACCOMPANIED BY FLOYD 0. FLOM, VICE PRESIDENT OP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE Mr. KNOWLTON. Thank you, Mr. McEwen. Mr. DORN. Mr. Knowlton, we are particularly pleased to have you. You can proceed any way you care to. If you would like to sum- marize, submit the statement for the record, you may do so. Mr. KNOWLTON. Mr. Chairman, it would take about 20 minutes. I would prefer to give the whole statement unless you would direct me otherwise. PAGENO="0331" 323 I will abide by your wishes. Mr. DORN. Just go right ahead. Mr. KNOWLTON. All right. As Mr. MeEwen said, I am David C. Knowlton, president of Knowl- ton Bros., Watertown, N.Y., a small paper manufacturer that ranks as the third oldest paper mill still operating on the same site in the United States. I am here this morning representing the American Paper In- stitute, of which I am a member of the board of directors. I have asked Mr. Floyd Flom to sit with me. Mr. Flom is the vice president of public affairs of the American Paper Institute. I am also chairman of the institute's air and water resources committee, which is charged with the responsibility of delineating and expressing the paper industry's position on matters within its purview. As further identification I am immediate past chairman of the Na- tional Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improve- ment., an organization devoted to reseach and engineering problems in this area. I am also industry advisory member of the New York State Water Resources Commission, a position which I have held since the commission was created in 1962. I am indeed grateful to Mr. Dorn, to Mr. Blatnik, and to the members of the Public Works Committee for this opportunity to com- ment. on H.R. 15907, the proposed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. PAPER INDtTSTRY'S INTEREST IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL The American Paper Institute is the national trade association of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. A nonprofit organization with approximately 230 member companies, it is the recognized repre- sentative of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry in the United States. The paper and allied products industry operates more than 800 pulp, paper, and paperboard mills and over 5,000 converting plants located in nearly every State of the Union. In 1966 industrywide em- ployment reached 684,000 people who were paid $4.6 billion. The paper industry is dependent on large quantities of water for the manufacture of its products and is therefore particularly aware of society's need for clean water. It was in this spirit, as I am sure you will recall, that Mr. William R. Adams, then chairman of the institute, testified before your committee on July 13, 1966, in support of a greatly expanded program of Federal grants to municipalities for the construction of waste treatment works and systems. His testimony was supplemented by technical data and financing data presented by Di'. Malcolm Taylor of Union Camp Corp. and Mr. Charles Hickey of West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. In the 2 years since Mr. Adams' testimony, we have continued our public support of the Federal grant program, together with support of joint municipal and industrial use of such treatment works wher- ever feasible. We all recognize that the national effort toward construc- tion of adequate waste treatment facilities has been lagging, due in part to a discrepa.ncy between authorization and appropriation of funds at the Federal level. PAGENO="0332" 324 The American Paper Institute, therefore, is pleased to endorse the purpose of H.R. 15907, which proposes to obtain maximum use of available funds by converting these appropriations to debt service payments covermg restricted bond issues to finance the Federal share of waste treatment plant construction. Since this legislation is primarily concerned with the financing of the grant program to aid in the construction of municipal pollution abatement plants, I feel that it may be in order to indicate why the paper industry is so concerned with this subject. To begin with, the pulp and paper industry has made manifest repeatedly its interest in the solution of environmental problems. A record of over 30 years of research on these problems on the part of the industry certainly gives testimony to this position. Also during the past few years when the subject has become one of national importance, the industry has repeatedly offered constructive testimony to representatives of both Houses of . Congress in their effort to enact legislation which would further the abatement of the Nation's pollution problems. Another measure of our industry's interest in and respome to the problem can be found in our expenditures and investment i n waste water treatment. First, with regard to expenditures for research, the National Council. of. the Paper Industry has spent over $7.5 million for research on water quality problems. Other industry groups and many individual companies have spent additional millions on similar research. Turning from. research expenditures to industry investments in waste treatment facilities, at the present time the magnitude of the industry investment is over $325 million, and this does not include the millions spent on operating costs for such facilities. The annual outlay of dollars estimated for operating costs industrywide is $25 million and it is expected to increase to between $35 and $40 million over the next few years. Furthermore, a recent survey by the National Council indicates that the industry will invest $80 million in 1968 for waste water treatment equipment and $90 million in 1969. These planned outlays over the next 2 years, when added to the investment to date of $325 million, add up, by the end of 1969, t.o nearly $500 million expended by waste water treatment installations on an industrywide basis. It is, of course, recognized today within the pulp and paper in- dustry that any newly constructed mill must embody in its basic design the necessary facilities for treatment of wastes to preserve the environmental quality with which this Congress is so deeply con- cerned. There is a large segment of the industry, however, whose original installations predate the statutory requirements for treated wastes. Most of the older installations, many of them small and in some cases marginal, are located within the jurisdiction of the smaller municipalities. The treatment of the wastes of these older plants at times is not only difficult from an engineering or teclmical standpoint but often is disproportionately expe.nsive, with no prospect of any return on the investment. This is one basis on which our industry has supported the legislation which recognizes that the public sector must bear a fair share of the cost of abatement. PAGENO="0333" 325 JOINT MUNIOIPAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT The most feasible mechanism from an economic standpoint to solve many of these problems appears to be the joint municipal industrial treatment plant, which is built with public funds with the industry paying a proportionate share of the original and operating costs in line with its contribution to the w~aste load. We are presently witness- ing a strong growth of interest in our industry in public treatment of mill wastes. A survey in this area recently completed by the National Council of the Paper Industry shows the following interesting facts: Of 753 separate pulp and paper manufacturing locations, 123 now discharge their process effluents to publicly owned treatment facilities. These mills account for approximately 11 percent of the total produc- tion capacity of the industry. Some 93 additional mills are presently considering discharge to public facilities. The production capacity of this group of mills also totals approximately 11 percent of the industry figure. Thus 216 mills, representing an impressive 22 per- cent of the industry's production capacity, have already become in- volved to one degree or another in public treatment of their waste waters. \\Te are, therefore., vitally interested in the ability of the munic- ipalities concerned to finance their share of the investment in these facilities. Since our industry is wholeheartedly in support of the orderly and prompt solution of pollution problems, we have felt that this tri- partite approach to plaiit financing a distribution of the financial burden among Federal, State, and local jurisdictions, with the in- dustry paying its share of the cost to the municipality, is a logical one. The authorizations enacted in past water quality improvement acts have been a step in this direction. Unfortunately, through cir- cumstances that are in no way connected with this subject, adequate appropriations have not been made by the Congress to implement the objectives of previous legislation. It would indeed be presumptous of me to suggest that funds for this purpose should be given priority over any of the other problem areas which the Congress is faced. CONCEPT OF H.R. 15907 ENDORSED It is, therefore, for this reason that we endorse the concept of H.R. 15907 as a mechanism to direct funds to the State and municipalities in support of the Federal share of these projects. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF BILL OPPOSED Although we endorse the purpose of this proposed legislation, there are, nevertheless, a number of specific provisions in H.R. 15907 which we cannot endorse and must in fact oppose, as in our opinion their overall effect would be to retard the momentum for waste treatment plant construction now being developed across the country rather than to enhance it. I would like to explain why we are concerned about those provisions we feel we must oppose. PAGENO="0334" 326 REFINANCING First, section 2(c), page 2: The wording change proposed here would eliminate the provision in the present law for reimbursement to the States of the Federal share of the cost of any project begun subsequent to July 1, 1968. This would have the effect of penalizing those states which have taken the lead in developing aggressive pollu- tion abatement programs and which have made the most progress to date. For instance, this change would severely penalize New York State, which, by prefinancing the Federal share, has accelerated the progress of municipal plant construction. The rescinding of this pro- vision is a reversal of that phase of congressional intent as set forth in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. As New York State is one of the two largest paper-producing States in the Nation it, can easily be seen why we, as an industry, are concerned about any action which will retard the progress that is well under way. TAXABLE STATUS OF BONDS Secondly, Section 2(f) (3) on page 5: The elimination of the tax- exempt status of municipal obligations for pollution abatement, both on those to be serviced by Federal payments and also on those covering the State and local shares, would, in spite of Federal assistance pro- posed under section 2(f) (1) (B) of the bill, sharply increase the total cost of interest. In addition, the elimination of the tax-exempt status would reduce the marketability of many municipal obligations which are not rated as top quality. In many States, market conditions would require a level of interest rates in excess of legal limits established by State or local law. Third, section 2(f) (5) on page 5: This provision of the bill would restrict contracts authorizing Federal installment payments to a treat- ment facility serving, essentially, either a population of 125,000 people or more, or a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the Bureau of the Budget. This restriction would eliminate from consider- ation for these contracts a great many municipal waste treatment plants in smaller communities where the need for financing is particu- iarly acute, and would also preclude the possibility of this type of assistance for many joint municipal-industrial plants involving those industries, such as our own, whose installations are mostly in rural and relatively sparsely populated locations. USER ChARGES Fourth, section 2(f) (5) (C) (i), page 6: A contract under the bill would require that a system of user charges be established for the pur- pose of amortizing construction, operation and maintenance costs of the treatment works. In Mr. Adams' testimony, referred to above, we recognized that users of waste treatment works should pay their approriate share of the costs of construction and operation. However, many communities presently prefer to assess such costs on a property value or other basis, and we suggest that this right of choice should be preserved. PAGENO="0335" 327 RESERVE FUND Fifth, section 2(f) (5) (C) (ii), page 6: This provision would re- quire the creation of a reserve or sinking fund, designed "to meet, to the greatest extent possible, expansion or replacement requirements of the treatment works service area." This would be tantamount to doubling the cost of a facility by providing for the funding of a future replacement. In view of the large sums which are required for construction of plants merely to meet present needs, we urge that these be financed first, leaving as a second step the financing of replace- ment facilities. PRIORITY SYSTEM Sixth, section 2(f) (5) (E) on page 7: At present, those States which have already made provision for financing a part of municipal plant construction and prefinancing the Federal share are generally imple- menting their programs on a concurrent basis, regardless of the size of current Federal appropriations. TJnder this new proposal in H.R. 15907, a priority system would necessarily have to be adopted, with the whole program coming to a halt upon expiration of annual appro- priations. Experience to date has demonstrated the inadequacy of this kind of appropriations. Seventh, section 3, page 9: This section, which is concerned with the size of the annual appropriations, continues the 1967 provision that at least 50 percent of the first $100 million appropriated shall be used to make grants to communities of less than 125,000 population. In view of the large number of such communities and from our stand- point the number with proposed joint industrial-municipal plants, we feel this sum is quite inadequate when consideration is given to the fact that it applies to the total of grants to all 50 States. OTHER PROVISIONS Eighth, we suggest, in section 2(f) (5) (B) on page 6, that some defi- nition or limitation be set forth to interpret "criteria established by the Secretary." We also suggest that section 2(g) (1) on page 8 include a qualifying phrase for the words "maximum efficiency" to take into consideration economic reasonableness. We also suggest that section 6(a) (6) (B), page 13, be amended to include the phrase "with due regard for technical and economic feasibility" after the word "pol- lutants" in line 19. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION Parenthetically I would like to lend my endorsement to section 2(g) (2) (B), page 9, which requires an effective statewide operator certification program. We in New York State have accomplished the same purpose by a 30 percent operation and maintenance grant to municipalities, which enables the State to insure that they are also operated at design efficiency. However, I suggest that your conditions require the state to be responsible for the operator certification pro- gram, rather than the Secretary. PAGENO="0336" 328 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL Now, having been critical of the bill as proposed, we suggest that an alternative is possible, having in mind the current stringent fiscal situation of the Federal Government. We suggest, as long as the Gov- ernment is unable to appropriate sufficient funds to cover the full Federal share of treatment projects, that bonds be authorized, to be issued as needed, with proceeds restricted to this purpose, in order to fund the Federal share. rfhese bonds would be retired, through an- nual appropriations for principal and interest, in much the same way that the Federal share would have been paid under the bill as orig- inally proposed. This mechanism would peimit the accelerating pro- gram of construction to proceed without loss of impetus. Then the current grant program could be continued without having to reduce the amount authorized in the Water Pollution Control Act. Such a plan would also eliminate any differentiation between municipalities of varying size. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate the strong support of our industry for the Federal role in the financing of waste treatment works, and for the result which 1-I.E. 15907 was clearly meant to bring about: Namely, the more rapid construction of these needed facilities. We are also pleased to note and support the provisions in 11.11. 15907 for a continuing Federal program of research, demonstrations, investi- gations, training, and information relating to the prevention and con- trol of water pollution. We regret that certain provisions of this legislation appear to be so restrictive as to retard progress toward the desired goal and therefore hope your committee will nmke needed changes in these provisions to assure that progress will result from this legislation. We realize that, given our national priorities as they exist today, the l)ollutioll abatement effort is not going to move forward as rapidly as might otherwise be the case. WTe hope that the clay is near when fiscal realities will permit the Federal Government to fund its share of this effort. I thank you for this opportunity to present our views on this im- portant subject. Mr. PORN. Thank you, Mr. Knowlton, for a very, I think, superb statement which will be helpful to the Committee. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. I want to join the Chairman in expressing our ap- preciation to you, Mr. Knowlton, for cQming down here and giving us the benefit of your views. I think that you have clearly analyzed some of the problems in the legislation now before us. TAX INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY I wonder, could you give me the benefit of your thinking on the question of tax credits to industry, for the industry to perform the maximum in accelerating the industries resolving their own pollution problem? PAGENO="0337" 329 The reason I ask that question, Mr. Knowlton, is that Secretary TJdall was before the committee yesterday and he seemed to think that it was not necessary to have this tax credit for industry, yet some of us have felt t.his would be very helpful to the industry if they had a tax credit, if they were resolving some of these pollutan.t problems. Could you respond to this? Mr. KNOWLTON. I feel everything the Federal Government can do to accelerate the program is well warranted. An accelerated deprecia- tion program is of interest to our industry, although it merely re- turns the benefits to the individual corporation at a more rapid rate than it would otherwise obtain. I think an increased investment credit would perhaps be more of an incentive. Now, may I refer once again to New York State, a situation with which I am particularly familiar? The New York State laws, as Governor Rockefeller pointed out earlier today, also provide a 1-year amortization which has been help- ful, and second, it provides freedom from real estate taxation, exemp- tion from real estate taxation for abatement facilities without any re- turn. And third, it provides exemption from sales tax, from sales taxes on the original equipment. All of these have benefited the industry in New York and I think it is a proper reflection of public interest to do so. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, as you know, the overall pollution problem is associated, both the public sector institutions and private sector or- ganizations, and what we are really seeking is to somehow balance the public and private sector organizations ability to handle this par- ticular problem. Now, certainly when you meet with your board of directors, if you could present to them the fact that a tax credit or a business tax credit-which is the same thing, really-will be available, and they would be paying taxes anyway, if they did not take care of this par- ticular problem, would this not help you in convincing your board of directors that they should be working toward the maximizing of con- trol of pollution in that area? Mr. KNOWLTON. Mr. Clausen, that would undoubtedly help, but I think I can truthfully say we do not need any further incentive to- ward maximizing our own efforts. I think that the increasing emphasis on the joint incliistrial-munic- ipal plant is one of the best mechanisms to accomplish this. Again, going back to New York State, this has been resolved by a declaration of policy by the State Health Department under the aegis of the Wa- ter Resources Commission, which dictates that the percentage of par- ticipation on the part of an industry in a joint plant is not limited. If it is 99 percent industry and 1 percent municipal, it qualifies for ac- ceptance under the state program, provided that the waste is amen- able to municipal treatment. I think all of these mechanisms make a part of the whole. The more that can be done, the faster we will accomplish our objectives. (At this point, Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) 94-376-----GS----22 PAGENO="0338" 330 ASSISTANCE TO SMALLER COMMUNITIES Mr. CLAITSEN. As you can see, what we are trying to accomplish is to develop a program whereby each level of Government throughout the entire Federal system is given the maximum incentives and hope- fully the wherewithal to carry out some of these pollution abate- ment objectives. I assume you were here when I directed some of my comments and questions to Governor Rockefeller with respect to the trend toward urbanization in this Nation. I have a very strong feeling that we have reached a critical point in history where we should start to try to decentralize population patterns of the country. And I believe that there is an opportunity here to assist some of these smaller communities who simply do not have the necessary tax resources to be able to provide the facilities to accommodate industry, should in- dustry themselves make the decision to locate in some of tile small so- called rural American sections. Do you agree with what I am saying here? I would like to have a generalization or comment from you in this regard. Mr. KNOWLTON. I think in general I do, Mr. Clausen. It might be pertinent, I think, for me to refer to and enter into the record a study that was made by the National Council of the Paper Industry on this matter of its problems of joint industrial and municipal plants. The talk was given at our annual meeting in February. It has not been published-I have a draft of it here-and I would like to submit it for the record. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent of the com- mittee that this particular draft of a speech be incorporated in the rec- ord at this time. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, so ordered. (The report follows:) [Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Members, Technical Session, National Council for Stream Improvement, Inc., February 20, 1968, New York, N.Y.] TREATMENT OF PULP AND PAPERMILL~ WASTES IN PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES By Dr. Isaiah Geliman, Assistant Technical Director, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. INTRODUCTION The subject of this paper has received considerable attention by National Coun- cil staff over a period of time dating back to the organization's inception. While understandably concentrating our efforts on problems associated with the sepa- rate discharge and treatment of mill waste water, we have always recognized that "joint treatment," -or what we have chosen today to call "treatment in publicly- owned facilities," would represent the most opportune and desirable solution for a growing number of mills. I need only remind you of some of our earlier reports on this subject, such as Technical Bulletins 91 and 156. These dealt in general terms with such matters as methods for assessing sewer service charges, the use of municipal ordinances and contracts to formalize such arrangements, and pretreatment requirements for protection of publicly-owned physical facilities and prevention of interference with treatment~ processes. We have looked into, and reported on, the important criteria that must be con- sidered by our industry's mill's before entering into arrangements for public treatment, such as availability of ample capability, means for arriving at stable and equitable rate structures, and the possibility of avoiding burdensome capital expenditures. We have stressed the need for maintaining a continuing sense of responsibility by the particular mill, once such arrangements have been corn- PAGENO="0339" 331 pleted, to insure that the desired water quality protection objectives are met, and at costs that bear a reasonable relation to the servicei rendered. Today we witness a strong surge of interest in public treatment (which we will document later in the talk) stemming from new requirements for additional and more widespread treatment, availability from state agencies of funds for treatment feasibility studies (coupled with some encouragement of regional treatment systems, both for improved program supervision and more ecenomical treatment), and the availability of public funds (both federal and to an in- creasing degree, state) to underwrite large fractions of the construction cost of publicly-owned systems regardless of the source of effluent being treated. Recognizing this renewed interest, the Council undertook a study during 1967 designed to establish the degree to which public treatment was being pro- vided, and the specific circumstances surrounding the renewed interest displayed by a growing number of mills, so that we could strengthen our cooperative mill technical program where public treatment came under active consideration. Today's paper therefore represents a preliminary report on the results of this study, which will be followed by a more detailed technical bulletin on the same subject. STATUS OF TREATMENT IN PUBLIC FACILITIES The study showed that of 753 separate pulp and paper manufacturing locations, 123 or 16 percent now discharge their process effluents to publicly-owned treat- ment facilities. These mills account for approximately 5.5 million tons per year of paper production capacity, or 11 percent of the industry total. This suggests that they tend to the smaller mills, and this is borne out by the results. The mills are concentrated in a number of lOcal areas such as Los Angeles County, Northern Metropolitan New Jersey, Philadelphia, Neenah-Menash, Kalamazoo, Cincinnati and Chicago, which together account for 58 mills, or 47 percent of those discharging to public systems. The mills tend to produce those grades most closely associated with location in, and adjacent to, major urban centers. Coarse paper grades account for 80 mills, of which 64 produce waste paperboard and 16 roofing felt, while fine paper grades account for most of the remainder (divided evenly between fine papers, specialties and tissue), only four mills are characterized as integrated pulp and paper units. Twenty-five percent are smaller than 50 TPD, and the median size is only 100 TPD. Only twelve mills, or 10 percent, are larger than 300 TPD. Of the total, 59, or slightly less than half, receive primary treatment, and 64 mills are provided with secondary biological treatment. Median treatment charges reported are 20~ and 65~ respectively for primary and secondary treatment for the waste paperboard mills, and 30~ and 80~ for all the mills surveyed respec- tively. Three methods for computing sewer service charges enjoy approximately equal use. These are ad valorem property taxation, and rates based on flow alone, or flow plus effluent strength. Specially negotiated contracts account for only 7 percent of the rates, while the more prevalent systems each are in use at approximately 30 percent of the mills. MILL5 CONSTDERING DISCHARGE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES This broad category covers mills known to have recently completed arrange- ments for public traetment, those where feasibility and rate schedule studies are still in progress, and some where such studies have led to a decision to proceed with independent treatment. The entire group includes 92 mills or 12 percent of those now operating. Their annual capacity totals 5.5 million tons, or 11 percent of the total for the industry. Taking both groups together, we find that use of public treatment facilities is more than an academic question for 28 percent of the industry's mills involving 22 percent of its production capacity. The largest concentration of mills now considering public treatment are lo- cated in three states: New York, Massachusetts and Maine, accounting for 55 mills or 60 percent of the total. These are states where effluent treatment has only recently gathered momentum after extended periods of stream classification and abatement program development for both municipalities and industries, and where planning funds have been allocated by the legislatures to assist such regional treatment feasibility studies. The size distribution profile of these mills is similar to that for mills already in public systems. Nearly 25 percent are smaller than 50 TPD, and the median size is 100 TPD. The coarse paper grades account for a lesser fraction of the mills, being equalled in number by those producing fine grades. We also see a PAGENO="0340" 332 significant increase in the number of integrated pulp and paper mills involved in such studies. This is particularly true in Maine and New York. Most of the feasibility and rate studies are not far enough along to permit an analysis as to projected costs or financing procedures. The bulk, however, are predicated on providing secondary treatment in line with actual needs or regulatory policy. Some aspects of these new studies merit extended attention, and I would therefore spend the remaining time dealing with these. IMPACT OF STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAMS In nearly every case where the proposed use of public facilities involves new treatment plant construction, construction grants figure very prominently. Out of a sampling of 22 projects for which we have detailed data (involving 33 mills), the minimum authorized federal support grant of 30 percent is referred to in seven cases, or for 33 percent of the projects. As a practical matter, it seems doubtful that such aid will fully materialize unless the federally budgeted funds for this purpose are increased or the Department of the Interior finds some alter- nate pay-as-you-go method for financing construction. Such an approach is under consideration by the Bureau of the Budget, by which the federal government would commit itself to pay the yearly principal and interest on local project bonds until its authorized commitment was met. An equal third of the projects, principally in New York State, anticipates 00 percent construction grant support. These would consist of a 30 percent state Pure Waters Program grant and an equal 30 percent federal grant prepaid, how- ever, from the available state program funds until the state can be reimbursed irom Washington. A few projects in New York, Maine and Massachusetts hope for in excess of 70 percent grant assistance, assuming both federal and state support, as well as a bonus for qualifying under comprehensive river basin abatement programs. USE OF EDA-DISTRES5ED AREA DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Several projects have qualified for large EDA grants through the U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce distressed area assistance program. These involve a total of six mills at Grand Rapids, Minnesota, Lincoln, New Hampshire, and Monroe, Michigan. (1) Grand Rapids, Minnesota.-The first of these will permit construction by the village of Grand Rapids of a $1.3 million chemical coagulation and sludge dewatering installation handling 11 MGD, with 80 percent of the capital cost met by EDA. The mill will meet the remaining capital charges, as well as the operat- ing costs, on a fixed contract basis. (2) Lincoln, New Ilampshire.-The Lincoln project is of interest in that it will involve installation of a Copeland fiuidized bed unit for burning of evapo- rated spent sulfite liquor, as well as a conventional treatment plant for white water, weak pulp mill wastes and municipal sewage. The entire project will cost $4 million, with EDA contributing $1.75 million, mainly for the liquor system, New Hampshire, $1.3 million, mainly for sewer and treatment plant construction, the Town of Lincoln, $0.2 million, and Franconia Paper, $0.8 million for internal liquor collection and sewer modifications. The Copeland unit will be located at the mill, and leased by its owner, the Town of Lincoln, to the mill. (3) Monroe, Michigan-At Monroe, the city sewage plant is being expanded to 24 MGD capacity including activated sludge treatment at a cost of $7.75 mil- lion, with the help of a 50 percent EDA grant. The new facility will have sufficient capacity for treatment of effluent from four local paperboard mills. While the number of locations that have benefited from this public aid pro- gram is quite limited, it is of interest that effluent treatment costs have been recognized as economically burdensome to a degree sufficient to warrant some form of relief under the EDA program. SPECIAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES At least three technical feasibility studies are now in progress designed to pro- vide data both for design and rate determination for proposed projects at Macon, Erie and Green Bay. (1) Macon, Georgia.-The Macon project involves the Macon Water Board,. Georgia-Kraft and Armstrong Cork, and may result in a 15 to 20 MGD plant providing activated sludge treatment. A small-scale continuous treatment unit. PAGENO="0341" 333 has been operated at the city treatment works, handling a simulated mixture of the three effluents to develop necessary process design data. Target date for secondary treatment at Macon is 1971. (2) Erie, Pennsylvania.-Hammermill has undertaken a $150,000 company- financed study, in cooperation with the City of Erie, of the possibility of expand- ing the local modified activated sludge plant to handle the weak pulping, bleach- ing and paper mill effluents now totaling 25 MGD. The sewage plant expansion being considered may run as high as 50 MGD to account for urban growth as well. Study objectives include development of design criteria and project costs, and determination of the possible reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient discharge from the municipal plant as a result of combined treatment of the nutrient-deficient Hammermill effluent. In view of the importance attached to the problem of Lake Erie eutrophication, this stands as a major feature of the study. (3) Green Bay, Wisconsin-Four mills and the Metropolitan Sewerage Dis- trict are collaborating on a similar study, which has received a $250,000 grant from FWPCA covering 75 percent of total study cost, `with the mills and the dis- trict sharing the remaining 25 percent. The study may lead to a 50 MGD ac- tivated sludge plant with 18 MGD accounted for by the four participating mills. All now have some form of pretreatment, with the three sulfite mills recovering or `burning a substantial portion of their spent liquor. `The degree of liquor seg- regation and weak effluent recovery can have a strong influence both on project capital and operating cost estimates. Consequently, the mills are investigating additional means for improved liquor collection, including the possibility of re- verse osmosis. The latter is the subject of another FWPCA grant-supported pro- ject at the Pulp Manufacturers' Research League. CONTRACT TERMINATION CLAUSES Companies contemplating public treatment are understandably concerned with contract provisions that specify (a) the public agency's obligations to provide continued treatment, and (b) the company's continuing obligations should dis- charge be terminated, either because of mill shutdown or development of alter- nate treatment measures~ Some examples of such contract clauses should there- fore prove instructive. (1) Hntehinson, Kansas-A 1958 agreement between the city and the mill specifies that both are obligated toward each other for a 30-year period, with successive automatic yearly renewals, unless notice is served six months before expiration. The mill may withdraw on written notice if the basic sewerage charges, originally set at 3 cents per 1,000 gallons, are increased .to 3.3 cents. (2) Oswego, New York.-More recently, Hammermill and the City of Oswego, New York, signed an agreement stipulating that the City must accept and treat the mill's effluent as long as the mill remains in operation. Hammermill agreed to pay the basic charge so long as the City was required to make payments on the construction bonds, even if effluent discharge to the city treatment system were to be terminated. One year's written notice would be required before such discharge could be terminated. (3) Kalamazoo, Michigan-In the recent Kalamazoo project agreement, the city and the contracting paper mills are obligated for a 30-year period, with suc- cessive automatic 5-year renewal periods unless notice is served six months be- fore expiration. The mills are prohibited from acquiring new treatment facilities so long as the city is prepared to provide the necessary treatment. The mills are, however, obligated to continue using existing prim'ary treatment systems. (4) Monroe, Michigan.-The agreenients just concluded obligate the city and three mills for 15 years, with automatic 5-year renewal periods, `during which the city must provide treatment and the mills must deliver their effluents for treatment, or pay fixed charges if mill operation is terminated. The agreement with the remaining mill runs for 40 years with the mill obligated for at least 15 years of fixed charges should mill operation terminate. TYPICAL RATE 5CHEDULE5----5URCIIARGE5 AND PENALTIES Finally, I would like to examine with you briefly several rate schedules now in effect, and see how they deal with load variations in terms of surcharges and penalties. (1) $tockton, Calif ornia.-This schdule covers a secondary treatment system treat in'g 22 MGD. Its ch'arges `to a local paperboard mill approximate 40 cents ver PAGENO="0342" 334 ton, two-thirds of which represents monthly charges, and one-third a demand charge computed from volume and load data for the heaviest month of the previous year. The mill pays no `surcharge for BOD, which does not exceed 400 pp. The surcharge itself is not particularly punitive, being only 0.5 cents per lb. BOD in excess of 35 lbs. BOD per ton paperboard. The mill charges per 1,000 galons are somewhat lower than the average for the total municipal system, re- flecting some economies of scale in levying charges. (2) Battle Creek-, Michigan-The Battle Creek Schedule has no `surcharge rate, and results in charges of approximately 80 cents per ton for the local mills. Since the 1960 secondary treatment pant expansion proceeded from negotiations to handle the industrial load, there is provision for assessment of fixed charges proportional to the capacity allocated to the mills in the expansion design. (3) Middlesex County, New Jersey.-This trunk sewer and joint treatment system employs a utility block rate approach by which unit charges decrease steadily as sewered load increases. While the schedule therefore does not appear to have a punitive surcharge quality, `the rate itself `is fairly high, so that if a conventional 200 TPD paperboard mill were to discharge, its rate would approxi- mate 20 cents per 1,000 gallons, or $2 per ton. A 50 percent increase in load beyond normal would increase these charges by at least one-third to nearly $3 per ton, far beyond the median charge cited earlier. (4) Cincinnati, Ohio.-The Cincinnati formula also yields charges above the median for normal paperboard wastes. Assuming an effluent just at the surcharge level for BOD and suspended solids, a doubling of both concentrations would add 60 percent to treatment costs. (5) Kalamazoo, Michigan.-The Kalamazoo rate schedule, which was devel- oped concurrently with the engineering studies to determine the degree of local participation, yields variable operating charges well below the median for sec- ondary treatment. A large portion of the new treatment plant cost is covered by new ad valorem city taxes, and these constitute around 50 percent of the total charges for waste paperboard-type effluents. An interesting feature of this rate schedule is the application of additional property tax to participating mills lo- cated outside the city limits (for equalization purposes), as well as a collection charge based on distance from the treatment plant to cover trunk sewer costs. (6) Monroe, Michigan.-The newly developed rate schedule for Monroe, which I have not presented here, provides surcharges which penalize effluents in a com- pound fashion as they increasingly exceed the treatment capacity assigned to the particular discharger in the project design. This approach, which is at variance with the conventional utility block rate systems, may be encountered more fre- quently as a means of discouraging overloads on closely designed systems, or possibly building reserve funds for interim modifications of facilities to meet such loads. SUMMARY After examining the data collected in this industry survey, several points bear statement by way of summary, and as guides to further industry action. (1) While mill location factors account for the bulk of the public treatment systems now in use, the coincidence of new treatment needs for communities and nearby mills, plus the authorization or availability of public construction grant funds are undoubtedly responsible for the large number of new projects under consideration. (2) These new projects require increasingly thorough feasibility studies, often involving pilot scale investigation, before proper choices can be made from the numerous alternatives that present themselves. The matter of choice is compli- cated by the uncertainties surrounding the availability of public construction grant funds. (3) There is a broad scatter of sewerage charges around the median for given degrees of treatment, as well as great variety in both the methods of rate determi- nation and specific unit costs. This suggests that there is only limited value in examining other rate schedules for specific inputs to a new project schedule. (4) We do find a growing use of the principles advanced in the Joint Commit- tee report in 1951. These call for engineering and fiscal analysis of capital and operating costs for the different functional parts of a given project to determine what costs should be assigned to (a) property taxes (regardless of sewer use), (b) fixed annual costs on a predicted basis considering capacity reserved in proj- ect design to known dischargers, and (c) variable costs assigned based on actual measurements and analysis of effluent discharge. PAGENO="0343" 335 (5) Lastly, regardless of the specific features of either the treatment system evolved, or the agreed-on rate schedule and contract form, there must be proper protection for the interests of all parties in terms of financing, administration, overload protection and treatment process performance. This requires continuing management attention to all aspects of such arrangements, both during project study phases, and after these have been translated into the reality of operation. MILLS NOW DISCHARGING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Number of mills, 123 of 753 or 16 percent. Capacity, 10 6 TPA, 5.5 of 50 or 11 percent. Major locations: Number Los Angeles County 13 Northern Metropolitan New Jersey 19 Philadelphia 6 Neenah, Menasha 6 Kalamazoo 5 Cincinnati 5 Chicago 4 Total (47 percent of 123) 58 MEDIAN REPORTED SEWERAGE CHARGES [Cents per ton] Waste paperboard mills (31): Primary 20 Secondary 65 All mills surveyed (54) Primary 30 Secondary 80 DEGREE OF TREATMENT NOW PROVIDED [In mills] Primary 59 Secondary 64 MILLS NOW DISCHARGING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Distribution by size: TPD: Number 0-100 62 101-200 35 201-500 23 Greater than 500 3 Median size 100 TPD. Distribution by type: Coarse paper grades: Waste paperboard 64 Roofing felt 16 Fine paper grades 39 Integrated pulp and paper 4 MILLS STUDYING DISCHARGE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Distribution by size: TPD : Number 0-100 44 101-200 19 201-500 23 Greater than 500 5 Median size 100 TPD. Distribution by type: Coarse paper grades: Waste paperboard - 32 Roofing felt 6 Fine paper grades 38 Integrated pulp and paper 15 PAGENO="0344" 336 DISTRIBUTION OF RATE COMPUTATION METHODS' Type: Percent Negotiated contracts 7 Ad valorem 30 Flow alone 31 Flow plus strength 32 1 Based on replies from 90 of 123 mills. STOCKTON, CALIF., RATE SCHEDULE Monthly charge: $22 per 106 gallons; $5 per 1,000 pounds BUD (>400 ppm.) $330 fixed service charges. Annual demand charge: ~` $100 per 106 gallons; $7.20 per 1,000 pounds BUD. MIDDLESEX COUNTY, N.J., RATE SCHEDULE Utility-type block, rate per quarter-Flow (in million gallons) 1st 40 $239 Next 60 99 Next 100 50 BUD 30 to 800 tons, $21 to $10 per ton. Suspension solids 10 to 700 tons, $29 to $10 per ton. CL2 30 to 810 cwt., $13 to $10 per cwt. CINCINNATI, OHIO, RATE SCHEDULE Minimum monthly charge for, first 7,500. gallons, $150 to $90.. 7,500 to 2,250,000 gallons, 13.4 cents per 1,000 gallons. Uver 2,250,000 gallons, 7 cents per 1,000 gallons. Surcharge volume,, S~, 3 cents per 1,000 gallons. Where S~, cubic feet=Flow, 10° gallons [(Sw -2,500)35+ (B~ -2,500)43]. Where S~ and B~== pounds S.S. and BUD per 10° gallons. BATTLE CREEK, MId., RATE SCHEDULE $14.20 per 106 gallons. $5.14 per 1,000 pounds BUD. $11.64 per 1,000 pounds suspension solids. Plus fixed charges covering 26.7 percent of 1960 secondary treatment expansion of $5,600,000. KALAMAZOO, MICH., RATE SCHEDULE $0.94-30.80 per 10° gallons (collection charge). $17.40 per 10° gallons flow, or 47 percent. $4 per 1,000 pounds BUD, 33 percent. $2 per 1,000 pounds suspension solids, 20 percent. Plus: 2 mils additional property tax on mills outside city and continued operation of mill primary facilities. Mr. KNOWLTON. All right, sir. Thank you. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you very much for an excellent contribution, Mr. Knowlton. Mr. MCCARTI-IY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. iMir. Knowltou, we appreciate your testimony here today. There is one thing at this time that I would like to discuss. MILLS USING MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Your testimony on the bottom of page 4 of your prepared testimony indicates that now 11 percent of the mills in the country are involved 1 Levied for maximum load month. PAGENO="0345" `-) in a joint industry-municipal plant arrangement, and an additional 1 1 percent will be coming in, or a total of 22 ercent. of the 1nduStry. Am I to take it from this that 78 percent of the industry will not be able to have their wastes treated through a municipal treatment plant? Mr. KNOWLTON. I think we must approach that with recognition of the fact that the more recent additions to our capacity, the large plants that are being built today and have been built in the last few years, have been out in the country and have included in the basic design of the facility treatment works that are necessary to handle their waste. The problem comes down to the older facilities that do iiot have built-in treatment facilities. Hence, this 22 percent of the capacity assumes much larger proportions when you consider the number of plants involved and the fact that this is an older part of the industry. W'e are urging, as an industry policy, that as many of the older facilities as possible investigate thoroughly the possibilities of coopera- tion and participation within a joint municipal-industrial plaiit. This study of Dr. Geliman goes jut0 that in some depth and I think it will be of interest to your committee. Mr. MOEWEN. Let me put the question a little differently. Has there been any question of concern or complaint from those companies whose ilants are not situated in a community where they can tie in with a municipal treatment plant? In other words, a mill located out in the country, not at any city or village. In one such case they spent. a sub- stantial amount in puttiiig in their own treatment facilities. Do such plants feel they are at any competitive disadvantage or is there an unfair burden placed on them because they cannot go into a joint municipal-industrial venture?. Mr. KNOWLTON. I think this is a matter of facing the realities of each individual situation. If they were foresighted and public spirited eiiough to go ahead and do the job, and in other cases where a marginal mill is concerned it cannot be done. This leads to a possible other suggestion and that is the creation of a quasi-municipal sewage dis- trict. I believe there are some of those in existence in the Middle `West. I think attempts have been made to create such districts and make them eligible for the same type of treatment and public-fund assista.nce as is available to the municipal plants. But iio two-it is a platitude to say that no 2 mills are exactly the same, and in New York State I think in most individual cases they have had to hammer out a program with the authorities of the health department in effecting the reduc- tion of their pollution loads. This can be done in other States as well. Mr. McCARTI-IY. Thank you very much, Mr. Knowlton. I just wanted to add my compliments to you personally, to your company, and to the Institute for the tremendous work you have clone in leading the way. I am in a way an alumnus of the paper industry. The company I was with for 13 years before coming down here had seven paper mills, National Gypsum Co., so I am familiar with your problems and the tremendous challenge t.hat you faced. I think the whole country really should be in your debt for the way you really tackled this problem. And I hope that your example will be followed by others. The committee will stand adjourned until- PAGENO="0346" 338 Mr. KNOWLTON. Excuse me, Mr. McCarthy. May I give one further answer to Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. NO COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION Mr. KNOWLTON. Mr. Flom has told me we know in the Institute of no instance where any company has considered that they have been subjected to unfair competition. I think that is in response to the ques- hon you asked. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you. That is it. Mr. Chairman, we all know one of the arguments for the importance of a Federal program is to try to bring all States into some uniformity so that an industry in one State would not be at a competitive dis- advantage with industry in another State, because in one State it would be burdened with cost of pollutant abatement and in another State it would be free of any responsibility for pollution abatement. That is what I was leading into-the question of whether we here bring in an element of competitive advantage or disadvantage to this program. Mr. KNOWLTON. I think we accept it as a fact of life. Mr. MCEWEN. In your industry, you have not had any complaints? Mr. KNOWLTON. No. Mr. MCCARThY. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12 :40 p.m., the committee was recessed, to recon- vene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFI'ERNOON SESSION Mr. MCCARTHY (presiding). The House Public Works Committee is now in session. Our first witness is Mrs. Wallace, of the Oyster Industry. THE ~OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1968" STATEMENT OP ELIZABETH WALLACE, THE OYSTER INSTITUTE OP NORTH AMERICA Mrs. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen and friends. Our trade association, The Oyster Institute of North America, was chartered in 1908 to unify the oyster growers. Now we represent the producers and dealers of the three species of oysters and three major commercial species of clams. It will not surprise you to hear that we vigorously support H.R.. 15906, the Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution ~ontrol Act of 1968. As the victims of the carelessness and exploitation of the oilmen, we hope for relief and redress for our tribulations from this type of pollution. Almost everywhere, ships pump their bilges at night and often within the confines of an estuary. `This practice is so harmf id to the PAGENO="0347" 339 waters and shore, and so apparent the next morning, one is baffled that it can happen so often. If the owners of vessels become responsible for spilling, leaking, pumping the bilges, et c~tera, we wager that crew- members will become instantly intelligent in their operations. It is our hope that the Secretary can issue regulations that can and will prove negligence that holds up under court action. States have strug- gled with provisions, regulations, laws, and inspections oniy to be defeated in actual practice. EFFECTS OF OIL ON OYSTER PRODUCTION In the various areas, oil affects our industry in different ways. Should a substantial oil spill occur in an estuary growing shellfish, we would hope it could be removed before sinking or being sunk. Oil eventually sinks, and oysters have a free-swimming larvae stage, dur- ing which they are helplessly exposed to all kinds of environmental conditions. Oil in water has a definite affinity for other material. Silt floating in water sooii is attached to oil that might be present. The specific gravity of the mass increases and it gradually sinks to the bottom. The rapidity of sinking is dependent somewhat upon winds, amount and size of particles of the silt. If the silt load is high and the particles large the oil sinks rapidly. If the silt is low it may float for some days and be widely dispersed by the winds and current. In either case the result is bad for marine organisms. Oil is even attracted to microscopic plants and animals. The organisms no longer remain sus- pended `but sink to `the `bottom to die. The late Dr. Thurlow Nelson has reported an extensive mortality of soft-shell clams from a heavy film of oil being deposited at low tide on the `bed. Dr. Nelson said, "Oil is, gallon for gaJlon as thrown out, the most destructive to aquatic life of all the foreign substances now entering our coastal waters." Oil incor- porated into the tissues of `oysters and clams causes them to be inedible even if it does not cause their demise from smothering or from toxic `effects. In States with tidal areas as in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and in the Gulf States, oyster reefs form all along the tidal areas and on reefs in the shallow bays that are often exposed at low time. Oil not only kills the spat-~that means the baby oysters- in these tidal areas but renders the shells unfit as clutch. In other words, the young oyster cannot or will not set on an oily shell. The potential for any such shore or reef hit by oil slick is negated. In the gulf, where oil is produced, the older rigs send oil ashore by small, numerous feeder lines that are often laid in shallow water and subject to breakage and leakage due to age, location, and being dam- aged by boat action. Unless these leaks are really major, they go undetected for long periods of time. 1-lowever, the seepage, if near an oyster bed, ruins them as food. In such cases, the oyster farmer is out of luck and may have gone out of business. It is virtually impossible to establish responsibility in these cases. In the process of drilling wells, the discharge is supposedly col- lected and the oil is burned in pits ashore. T'he oystermen of Louisiana testify that the entire mess is too often dumped wherever it is conven- iently un detectable. There are not enough supervisory people available in Louisiana to make the State law effective. Dr. Paul Galtsoff and PAGENO="0348" 340 others studying this problem in Louisiana found even this soluble fraction was detrimental to oysters, hampering feeding and having the effect o-f narcotics. Our members along the York River in Virginia-a western tributary of Chesapeake Bay-have suffered losses ever since the installation of the Shell refining plant across the river from Gloucester. There were all kinds of promises and assurances that Shell would not be harmful to the vast marine resources of the York River. The oyster growers in the vicinity get poorer each year, and more and more are giving up. Spills and accidents occur all the time. Virginia fines the company, but the oystermen are told, "Sorry." If only the victims had redress, the couplings, the horses, the valves of the equipment loading the tankers would, we believe, suddenly operate much better. To add to their grief, up the river on the opposite side, there is a Navy supply depot. Despite our Government's effort to abate pollution of its own vessels, the evidence is strong that Navy ships at the depot discharge oil or pump their bilges. Oily debris frequently fouls these areas and the only source is the depot itself. RESOLUTION OF PACIFIC COAST OYSTER GROWERS ASSOCIATION The members of the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association, which are affiliated with us, expressed their problems with oil and oysters in the following resolution and action at their aimual meeting last August: Whereas, extensive contamination of shorelines, bays, harbors, and estuaries of England and France resulted from oil from the wrecked tanker Torrey Canyon~ and Whereas, similar oil spills at sea have caused contamination of beaches along the coast of the United States, and Whereas, certain methods used for control of oil spills may also cause harm to biological populations, and Whereas oysters, clams, crabs, and other food species may be contaminated by oil or by chemicals used in control of oil spills so that they will be unfit for market, and Whereas Puget Sound is being considered as the major West Coast unloading area for super tankers, and other bays important to oyster culture are used as ports for medium-sized tankers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of Trustces of the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association: 1. Each member be alert to opportunities to participate in local decisions regarding establishment of oil depots in Puget Sound and in other areas important to oyster culture, and that, 2. The association and each member demand inclusion of adequate facilities and procedures for control of oil spills in any oil depot development, and, 3. The Association go on record as supporting national programs for develop- ment of procedures for controlling oil spills which will prevent damage to commercial fish and shellfish resources, and that, 4. The executive secretary be instructed to send copies of this resolution to the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies. A little oil is too much for our product because it cannot be mar- ketecl once these hydrocarbons become incorporated into the tissues. We cannot be a part of the GNP without your help. AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED We respectfully request that section 21 of H.R. 15906 be amended as: (a) add to line 11 the phrase "and to the marine resources." PAGENO="0349" 341 CONCLUSION For the giant steps in water pollution legislation, which you of the public works committee have initiated and maneuvered into law in re- cent years, we are profoundly grateful. Together we must implement these statutes via continuous effort and realistic appropriations to achieve effectiveness. Because of the vision and action of this very committee, we may be able to preserve and, hopefully, restore this heritage. Despite the willingness of the polluter and the inertia of bureaucratic bodies, I see progress as I move about the country. Pol- luters are less arrogant, the public is aroused even if sometimes mis- directed, and nearly every State is about to agree to belonging to the union, that is, being a part of the action. As we participate in the various enforcement conferences being called by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the most frequent controversy whirls about how to achieve adequate sewerage treatment facilities for municipalities. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO WASTE TREATMENT PROJECTS I was at a loss to know whether I was supposed to testify on H.R. 15907 or not. However, with this being such an important problem, we hope that it can be resolved as quickly as possible nationally. In my simple way of thinking, I suggested that a 50-percent grant for any disposal system that meets the Federal specifications be guaranteed. It seemed to me that confusion and disenchantment of the various States may be dissipated in action if these people knew exactly what they must do and how much they could depend upon the Federal Government for help. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wallace. Mr. Chairman, any questions? Mr. BLATNIK. I have no questions. I appreciate your attending. The witness again has been so helpful in the past and so have the witnesses of the Oyster Institute of North America. PROGRESS IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I think we are on the road to making progress, though, as you in-S dicate in your concluding statement. I think the picture is a lot dif- ferent now than it was 10 years ago. Mrs. WALLACE. Yes, Mr. Blatnik, tha.t is true. Mr. BLATNIK. In many cases the dominant concept was that pol- lution was primarily a local problem and a health problem, but now we realize that it is a very complicated problem in breadth and depth, in interlaces and interlocks. Municipalities and States and river basins and industry, people, and the Federal Government definitely have quite a stake in it. We are going to try to improve the financing, which will be one area most complicated, and try to make it easier for the municipalities to en- gage in the financing. It has been a problem. We hope to do more on oil pollution. It has been really complicated, I think, in the area of enforcement, as to what do you do with a complicated substance that you deal with, plus other chemicals such as phenols? We don't know what to do with it when it gets in the water. PAGENO="0350" 342 Mrs. WALLACE. It is toxic. Mr. BLATNIK. The pollution act, by the acts of 1955 and 1956, the financial aid was aimed a little more heavily at larger cities now to avoid a lot of the pollution from the congested metropolitan areas. Not only indus;trial but also municipal wastes are very harmful to yo~ir existing oyster beds. Mrs. WALLACE. Yes. All along the shorelines. It is so important to have a comprehensive plan to take care of their wastes, so that we do not actually make it worse. And this can happen. Mr. BLATNIK. Those engaged in comprehensive planning, pius other criteria which you have spelled out in 1966, will enable municipalities to get up-to-SO-percent grants. Mrs. WALLACE. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. I appreciate your acknowledging that we have made some progress. We all agree there is a long, long way yet to go. Mrs. WALLACE. That is right. Mr. BI~TNIK. We are determined not only to go the distance but to speed up, as we get cranked up, and we are getting cranked up in a very positive and effective manner to accelerate, to keep up with the need. Mrs. WALLACE. We count you and your colleagues our major bless- ings. Thank you, Mr. Blatnik. Your vision is so wonderful. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Wright? Mr. WRIGHT. I think not at this time. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wallace. (At this point Mr. Blatnik assumed the chair.) Mr. BLATNIK. Next is our respected colleague and our friend, long a very ardent worker and coworker on behalf of pollution control, Congressman John Dingell, from Detroit, Mich. Let the record show that Congressman Dingell was present on two different occasions this morning. Congressman, we appreciate your coming back again for the con- venience of the committee this afternoon. Let the record show that, in addition to being a consistent supporter of the Federal Water Pollution Control legislation in Congress ever since its inception in 1956, the Congressman also has additional amendments, and his bill, H.R. 494, is before us, which I imagine you will describe and explain, as well as H.R. 16044, which will en- courage or design to encourage the improved operation of waste treat- ment plants through chemical as well as mechanical means. Congressman, you are a familiar figure before this committee. We respect your competence in this field and certainly your earnestness, and also your ability to speak so articulately and make yourself clearly understood with or without the script. Please proceed as you wish. Your entire statement will appear in the record, the complete text, at this point. STATEMENT OP HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM TEE STATE OP MICHIGAN Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must apologize to the Chair for having been caught rather short of time and rather busy in my office and not having been able to pre- pare the appropriate number of statements for the committee. PAGENO="0351" 343 Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Joim D. Dingell. I am a member of Congress from the 16th Congressional District of Michi- gan. I would like to thank the Chair, my very dear friend of long standing, for the privilege of being here today. I would like to com- mend the chairman and the members of this distinguished committee for their longstanding interest in clean water and in restoring cleanli- ness to the waters of this Nation. I believe it may be fairly said that without the leadership of the distinguithed chairman of the sub- committee, my good friend from Minnesota, Congressman John Blatnik, that the progress we have seen, the enormous progress we have seen in these past few years, would not have taken place. It has been one of my proud boasts that I have been able to work with the distinguished chairman over these years, going back to the enact- mont of the first original water pollution control bill in 1956, the Blatnik bill, that has done so much to clean up our waters and lay the basis for further progress. Mr. Chairman, I will not comment on the administration legislation before you. There have been a number of other witnesses `who have done so. I would like to comment on some peripheral matters before the committee that I believe might be of assistance to the `committee in terms of evolving a good piece of legislation. FEDERAL GRANTS FOR USE OF NEW METHODS IN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION I would like to direct the attention of the committee first of all to J'I.IR. 16044, and point out the virtues of that very modest proposal, authorizing some $25 million a year from fiscal 1969 through 1972, inclusive, and which sums would remain available until expended for purposes of making grants annually to States, municipalities, interinunicipal or interstate agencies, for the purpose of assisting in the operation of existing waste treatment plants, using proven naeth- ods to achieve substantial and immediate improvement in effluent quality, including phosphate removal. These grants would be made pursuant to State plans and would be made after State water pollution control agencies certified to the Secretary of the Interior that the operation of such waste treatment plan has been performed and `will be performed in accordance with the purposes of the bill to utilize newer and better methods and new additives in matters of thi's type. I would point out that this legislation has significant support throughout the industry, particularly the manufacturing `chemists and a number of their constituents and members. I would point out that I do not appear here today as representative of this `group or of any member, and I do not appear as advocate of any particular device or treatment, form of treatment or additive that might be used. But it occurred to me in this time of great shortage of funds that one of the things that can be done would be to utilize every method presently available to us to substantially improve the quantity and quality of treatment that is afforded to our waters. As the Chair well imows, the cost of `operating these plants is enor- mous. It is going to be in the next 5-year period something on the order of $1.4 billion and conceivably can rise considerably hig~her. In addition to this, there is going to be needed for `construction something on the order of $8 billion, or perhaps as high as $8.7 billion, to construct the plants needed. PAGENO="0352" 344 INADEQUATE FINANCING OF WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION Our present level of expenditures, particularly considering the level of expenditures that has been programed in the budget for the p'ast, that is for `this fiscal year and `the previous 2 fiscal years, certainly gives us no hope of reaching or stimulating the level of construction that is needed. In the State of Michigan, Federal grants will go to somewhere between one-third and one-fourth of the eligible upplicants and con- ceivably this year it could run to even a smaller fraction, and we are finding continuing dissatisfaction from the communities and from the States at the level of funding that the Federal Government has made available. This is a matter of some concern, since I must tell you it is my frank opinion that we are now finding our program of waste treat- ment plants and sewage abatement works and things of this kind being significantly retarded by the low level of Federal funding that is now being made available. I am sure the record indicates, Mr. Chair- man, the figures insofar as construction grants as opposed to the level that this committee `has authorized. I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that this committee in its continuing interest in this matter not simply permit this question of water- of Federal grants under Public Law 660, as amended, to be handled in `the rather cursory fashion that it has been handled by the Ap~iro- priations Committee and the Bureau of the Budget. I would hope this committee in the exercise of its oversight and its wise policy in the field of water pollution would be most vigorous in compelling a more generous and a more wise and a more realistic level of expendi- tures, and one which is more closely related to the very carefully planned-out program, in terms of the level of expenditures that has been programed by this committee in terms of the language of the amendments to Public Law 660. I would point out that in all probability the level of funding that is authorized by Public Law 660 over the next 40 or 50 years is not going to be adequate even if maintained and substantially enhanced. This, of course, is one of the reasons why HI.R. 16044 affords oppor- tunity for some advancement. H.R. 16044 NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE TREATMENT I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose of the bill is not to set up a substitute for adequate treatment. It is to do two things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, during this time when funds are short and can be expected to be short, it is my hope that this legislation will afford the basis for improving significantly the quality of our water treatment through encouraging States, municipalities, conamunities, interstate, intermunicipal agencies to utilize the most modern and efficient operation of their treatment plants. POTENTIAL EFFICACY OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT Potentially, it is possbile, Mr. Chairman, to remove, through the utilization of polyelectrolytes, polymers and a number of other things. The significant improvement in waste treatment, conceivably in well- operated plants, opera.ted on a secondary basis, it is possible to remove as much as 90 percent of phosphates and to have a significant improve- PAGENO="0353" 345 ment in removal of nitrates, in terms of removal of solids, in terms of removal of biological oxygen demand, and in terms of removal of micro-organisms. Some of the figures that have come to my attention in this matter are interesting. First of all, the raw-waste system-flocculation sys- tem-can be used in primary plants where the solids-handling equip- ment is adequate and where the plant is adequate to the needs, and can result in significant increases in the efficiency of the plant. Raw-waste flocculation can be used in almost every secondary plant. Chemical treatment could be applied now to additionally prevent some 240,000 tons per year of organic solids from reaching our waters. With adequate sludge facilities at a capital cost of some $5 million, an additional 118,300 tons per year of organic solids could be retained and could be removed from our waterways. In cities where raw-waste flocculation could be successfully applied now, a tremendous amount of increase in terms of efficiency could be achieved for the modest cost of $15 million. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the level of addition of these chemicals to the waters is very, very slight. In some instances as few as five parts per million can create enormous increase in efficiency of the plant. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in a number of other cities where raw-waste flocculation could be successfully applied, if sludge capability was made adequate, would cost an additional $5 million. In cities where phosphate removal is required-some eight cities, having about 1,103 million gallons per day-this could be accom- plished for about an additional $6 million. The total costs for a program of the kind that I have indicated would run about $24.6 million or just a little less than the amount authorized. The cost for application in terms of removing solids and improving solid removal would be $3 to $8 per thousand gallons-rather per mil- lion gallons. And phosphate removal can be improved for $10 to $20 per million gallons. And it is conceivable that if these new devices and these new chemical additives are used properly that we could reduce without increasing significantly our expenditures for capital construc- tion the pollution to our waterways by about 40 percent. This is a tremendous improvement in terms of our endeavors to abate the pollution of our waterways, and it is quite important. I do have something that I found in Chemical & Eugiueering News, a rather excellent article about chemical removal of phosphorous being feasible, something which is one of our major problems, and I will submit that for the record at this point if I may do so. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. ("Chemical Removal of Phosphorus Feasible" follows:) CHEMICAL REMOVAL OF PHOSPHORUS FEASIBLE [From the Chemical & Engineering News] Removal of 90 to 95% of phosphorus from municipal waste waters can be achieved today in a typical 10-mi11ion-ga1lon-per~day treatment plant for 5 cents or less per 1000 gallons. This is the conclusion drawn by `the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration from an evaluation of phosphate removal cost data. The data have been accumulating from lab and pilot plant tests as well as from full-scale plant operations. The process which would lead to these costs and which can be designed, con- structed, and operated with greatest confidence today would employ chemical treatment, according to Dr. Leon Weinberger, FWPCA's assistant commic~ionDr 94-370-6S----23 PAGENO="0354" 346 research and development. But certain types of combined chemical biological treatment systems will also be ready soon, he says. These findings were among reports presented at the four-State Lake Michigan enforcement conference held earlier this month in Chicago (C&EN, Feb. 12, page 9). Conferences were also the first to hear from Michigan's department of public health on results of tests conducted last year with Dow Chemical involv- ing use of polyelectrolytes for removing phosphates from municipal waste water. Dow also chose the time of the conference to announce its commercial entry into phosphate removal using polyelectrolytes (C&EN, Feb. 12, page 19). Alkaline removal with lime and adsorption or precipitation with metallic hydroxides are the two common types of chemical treatment for phosphate re- moval. They can be applied as tertiary treatment or independently as separate treatment for various waste waters. Typical phosphate removal for either type or combination, Dr. Weinberger says, readily exceeds 90%. Along with phosphate removal there is a reduction in turbidity, in biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand, and in bacterial numbers. The principal advantage today in chemical treatment, Dr. Weinberger points out, is that plant operation can be kept within close control. Moreover, laboratory data will predict dosage levels for particular phosphate residuals as well as settling rates for clarifier designs. A still further advantage is that chemical treat- ment can be effective even with fluctuations in the preceding conventional proc- esses and should maintain a more uniform effluent quality than other phosphate removal processes. Dr. Weinberger provides a cost breakdown for a tertiary chemical process treat- ing secondary effluent. Capital amortization on the basis of cost per 1000 gallons varies with plant size, ranging from 0.97 cent per 1000 gallons for a 1-million- gallon-per-day plant to 0.~35 cent per 1000 gallons for a 100-million-gallon-per-day plant. Operation and maintenance likewise vary, depending on plant size. For a 1-million-gallon-per-day plant, they would run 0.41 cent per 1000 gallons, and for a 100 million gallon~per-day plant, 0.08 cent ;per 1000 gallons. Other costs are constant. Land amortization runs 0.09 cent per 1000 gallons. Cost of sludge disposal by hauling to land fill (25-mile one-way trip) is .67 cent per 1000 gallons. More than half the total cost is in chemicals. Lime, at 1.75 cents, and iron salt, at 0.87 cent, add up to 2.62 cents per 1000 gallons. however, a significant savings is possible if sludge is recalcined to recover part of the lime. Dr. Weinberger puts the savings at 0.96 cent per 1000 gallons. Even without recalcination, however, the total comes in at under 5 cents per 1000 gallons. For the 1-million-gallon-per-day plant, the total is 4.76 cents per 1000 gallons. For a 10-million-gallon-per-day plant, it's 4.31 cents; and for a 100-million-gallon-per-day plant, it's 4.11 cents. For normal plant loadings, 5 cents per 1000 gallons ($50 per million gallons) is equivalent to about 1 cent per person per day. Two forms of combined chemical/biological treatment can be used. A pre- cipitant such as lime may be added to the primary tank, where it takes out most of the phosphate with some additional removal in the biological phase. Alternatively minerals can be added directly to the actuator tank, causing slightly soluble phosphorus compounds to form and precipitate. In the latter process, Dr. Wein- berger says, additives such as aluminum or iron salts cause no interference in the biological activity, and mixing and residence time provided by the aerator are enough for precipitate to form. One example of mineral addition is a field study completed by FWPCA at the Xenia, Ohio, waste wa'ter treatment plant. Using makeshift equipment and adding sodium aluminate at an aluminum-to-phosphorus ratio of 1.8:1, 85~ to 92% re- nioval of phosphate was obtained. Normal removal, which the plant returned to following the study, is 20%. The chemical cost for the test, Dr. Weinberger points out, was 5 cents per 1000 gallons, even though equipment was makeshift and conditions were not the most controlled. Equipment was makeshift at Grayling, Mich., too, where Michigan's public health department and Dow conducted field tests with polyelectrolytes. Tests were started following bench studies that indicated 90% or more of total phos- phates could be removed from raw wastes by plain sedimentation with the addi- tion of about 20 mg per liter of iron as ferrous chloride, an equal amount of sodium hydroxide, and about 0.5 mg. per liter of an anionic polymer. Iron and caustic, according to the report, were added to the sewage at the lift station with no formal mixing facilities. Polymer was added at the entrance to the settling tank with crude and temporarily rigged mixing equipment. More- over, the report says, the plant was grossly overloaded hydraulically at that time because of the city's seasonal influx of tourists. PAGENO="0355" Actual or projected Size-Million cost for 10 to 20 Location Status gallons per day Process million gallons per day, cents! 1,000 gallons Actual or projected phosphate removal efficiency, percent Lake Tahoe, Calif Operational 2.5 to 4 Chemical-alum tertiary with separation beds <9 >95 (0.1 to 1.0 ppm. in Nassau County, Long Island, N.Y Operational since 1965 0.6 do <7 Pomona, Calif Operational 3 Chemical/biological-alum secondary with activated effluent). >60. sludge. >80. Lansdale, Pa do 0.3 Chemical-alum tertiary with separation beds <10 Wayne, Mich Operational for short period~~. 45 Chemical/biological-alkaline waste calcium chloride >90. to raw sewage. Lake Tahoe, Calif Startup February 1968 4 to 7.5 Chemical-lime tertiary with separation beds <9 Las Vegas, Nev Operational since 1961 (2 siten) 4 Chemical-lime tertiary with single clarifier <4 Washington, D.C Operational Pilot plant Chemical-lime tertiary with dual clarifiers and lime <4 (jar test). >95 (0. ito 1.0 ppm. in effluent). >95 (0.5 p.p.m. in effluent). >95. recovery. South central region Prier operation (5 sites) do Biological-activated sludge, phosphate uptake <1 Black River plant, Baltimore, lid Operational test 20 do <1 Irvine, Calif Operational Pilot plant Biological-activated sludge, phosphate uptake, acid <5 elutriation, chemcal removal. to. 87. >90. -90. Source: Water Pellution Control Administration. PAGENO="0356" 348 Even so, total phosphate removal was between 60 and 80%, with a most prob- able mean value of 72%. Without polymer, there was a "very low order" of removal. In addition to phosphates, suspended solids removal was from 60 to 87%, with a mean value of 78%-a 27% increase compared to performance with- out chemical addition. Five-day BUD removal increased to about 58% during the study from a mean value of about 40% before and after. Similar tests were carried out at Lake Odessa, Mich., where treatment facilities include trickling filters and sludge digesters. Made under similarly makeshift and uncontrolled conditions, the tests showed that polyelectrolyte treatment en- hanced trickling filter performance, as measured by five-day BUD and suspended solids removal. With the chemical treatment, suspended solids removal increased from a mean value of 78 to about 89%, and BUD removal from about 60 to 80%. Total phosphate removal fell between 75 and 92% with a mean value of 82%. Based on its work in these and other tests, Dow has decided to offer commer- cially its services for phosphate removal projects. The company feels that removal of 90% or more is possible at costs varying from as little as $15 per million gallons to as high as $50 per million gallons, depending on the particular waste and treatment facilities. Mr. DINGELL. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this matter was discussed in connection with the report of the Department of the Interior, the summary, entitled "The Cost of Clean Water," which is filed with the Congress, pursuant to Public Law 660, as amended, and point out in there that this study did indicate that removal effi- ciency may be increased by more effective use of currently available treatment methods or by other methods now under study. Then they went on to discuss where a Federal Water Pollution Control reesearch and development grant has been made to a Cleveland, Ohio municipal treatment plant for a pilot study, the possibilities of increasing the removal of efficiency by using the relatively new polyelectrolytes, co- agulating chemicals, offers rather considerable promise, and I would hope that this promise can be realized. REASONS FOR LEGISLATION The reason for the legislation, I must confess to you, is first the shortage of funds available to carry out our program of abatement of water pollution through new construction, something which I think must be remedied at the earliest possible moment. But in addition to this, Mr. Chairman, I must point out that I have a very strong antipathy to the idea of making grants for operation. But I believe the only way we are going to get these new devices used and to achieve the efficient operation of these plants that we really hope to is by making funds available to the desperately faced cities and municipalities of this Nation which are having a difficult time meeting the problems which they face in such diverse matters of pov- erty, establishment of adequate school system, police protection, pre- venting riots, providing educational opportunities, jobs and all of the other things that we have traditionally looked to the cities aml the States to do. STRENGThENED ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY Mr. Chairman, if I may now direct the attention of the Chair- there are several other bills that I believe are of interest to the com- mittee. Several of them are not before this committee. I would urge upon the committee careful consideration of H.R. 494 and the princi- ples that are included in that legislation. This would strengthen and PAGENO="0357" 349 improve the authority to enforce abatement of pQllution, would require filing of notice with respect to discharge of matter in interstate or navigable waters, and require permits to regulate discharge matters, and accomplish a number of other purposes, which I believe would be desirable including expediting significantly the rate at which water pollution abatement actions may be carried forward. It also would provide consistent with the principles established in the Air Pollu- tion Act the devices for encouraging international participation in the abatement of water pollution, a matter which greatly affects my dis- trict along the Detroit River, which does affect a number of the bound- ary waters across the country. VESSEL AND OIL POLLUTION CONTROL I would also, Mr. Chairman, urge consideration of H.R. 486 and H.R. 485, two pieces of legislation which are not assigned by the rules of the House, Parliamentarian and Speaker to this committee, but which do merit consideration insofar as the principles they involve. H.R. 485, dealing with the establishment of programs to abate pol- lution to the navigable waters to the United States, through establish- ing standards for disposal of waste from vessels. There are an enormous number of vessels that are in daily commerce upon our waters, which are an enormous source of pollution. In my district there is something on the order of 100,000 vessels of all sizes, in almost continuous operation on the waters of the Detroit River and Lake Erie. I would point out that the same study that I mentioned earlier indicates that in any given year there are 110,000 commercial and fishing vessels, 1,500 federally owned vessels, and about 8 million recreational watercraft using the navigable waters of the United States. In addition to this, there are approximately 40,000 foreign ship entrances in the United States which are recorded each year. This would attempt to establish standards which would affect the handling of waste treatment by these vessels, requiring holding tanks, chlorina- tion and other matters, with which at fairly modest costs a significant improvement in water quality, particularly in confined waters, like the Great Lakes, could be achieved. H.R. 486 does substantially the same thing, with special emphasis on the Great Lakes, and also, Mr. Chairman, in connection with some problems that we have with regard to the Oil Pollution Act of 1924. I recognize that there will be some jurisdictional problems in con- nection with these matters between the Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of which I am a member, to which these bills are assigned. But I believe there is the possibility of utilizing the principles already established in connection with the Boating Act, I believe of 1958, which does afford the Federal Government the established principle of establishing Federal stand- ards in connection with the handling of veseis, vessel licensing and matters of this kind, and at the same time establishing a practice of appropriately requiring State action. Failing this State action, the Federal Government is authe rized to step in and to reach the particular problem. PAGENO="0358" 350 I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this generally goes along with the practices and the patterns that have been established under this very able committee, under the leadership of its very able chair- man, in terms of arriving at State programs which are entirely adequate-which are approaching the level of adequacy, in terms of handling pollution originating from industrial and municipal sources. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, too, that this committee would give thought to some of the problems that are now arising that are a little bi~ out of the ordinary realm of pollution. THERMAL POLLUTION And I would direct the attention of the Chair and the members of the committee to the problem of thermal pollution. In theory at least this can be handled through the water quality standards, and it is subject to abatement as is any other pollution. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, because of the novelty of it, it has not yet been so handled. I would point out in addition to this, Mr. Chairman, that there will very shortly be large numbers of enormous steam generating plants, both conventionally powered through con- ventional fossil fuel uses and also through the use of nuclear energy. These are going to have heat emissions into our waters which will be enormously higher and enormously more destructive than those which we have faced in times past, with the conceivable possibility of very, very adversely affecting water uses, water quality, fishing and wild- life, municipal water supplies, and a number of other things. I would hope, Mr~ Chairman, that some effort would be made by this committee in its consideration of water pollution legislation in accomplishing two things. Perhaps meeting this need through special legislation, directed spe- cially at the problem of thermal pollution, or possibly through exercise of its oversight authority. The particular problem I found is not so much the fossil fuels, as it is the atomic reactors, which are going to create particular problems, and on which, in terms of abatement of this kind of pollution I have received most minimal cooperation, indeed outright refusal to cooperate any way through the Atomic Energy Commission. And I would again urge the strong attention of this committee to the very, very frank, what I regard, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a very gross failure by the Atomic Energy Commission in this area. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I wish to express again my thanks to my dear friend the chairman, and also the members of the committee, for the privilege of being here and giving you my views on these matters today. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. The gentleman again impresses us with his facility and easy manner of his oral presentation without a text. I wonder what you would do if you had a written text? Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Mr. Br~&TNnc. You do offer several sound suggestions. I repeat some of them: The point of improving chemical means to improve the effi- ciency of mechanical processes now in use, and research work is being PAGENO="0359" 351 done on organic polyele.ctrolytes, water soluble polymers, and particu- larly in the field of phosphate, which has been a real problem. Mr. DINGELL. This is a ma.j or problem in the lake area and in our area. Mr. BLATNiK. It would save a. lot of money trying to clean up the lakes under the clean lakes program. `We will consider these sugges- tions here. The suggestions you made are very, very pertinent and very helpful. We assure the gentleman they will be given full and careful scrutiny and evaluation. We will call on him for his judgment, too, and also the deliberations in executive session. We do hope to come out with, I hope, what will be a very effective sort of onmibus bill, putting several categories in for which substantial improvements are justified and necessary now on the basis of past ex- perience and past finding. We find improvements can be made. It is not going to be easy. The gentleman will recognize that. You have fiscal problems, chemical problems, you have enforcements aspects to which you made reference, and all of these. To mesh them all into the existing program without causing too much dislocation will take some careful planning. But I know with the cooperation we have received in the past from membership on both sides of this committee, I think we will come out with a very good sort of omnibus bill to amend the current water pollution law. If there are no further questions from either side- PURPOSE OFH.R. 16044 Mr. IDINGELL. Mr. Chairmaii, I w-ould like to add one comment that I should have mentioned earlier. The purpose of my legislation, the handling of the treatment plants, financing programs for new addi- tives, new- treatment programs, is not to substitute for adequate con- struction, adequate treatment. It is *t.o encourage where primary treatment is the only source available for maximum efficiency of that, where secondary is the maximum level of treatment, that should be operated in the most efficient fashion to remove the largest amount of all kinds of wastes from the water. And it is not., Mr. Chairman, my intention to substitute this for, let's say, having secondary treatment plant construction or tertiary treatment plan construction. It would be my hope it would be utilized to the maximum treatment, both through adequate construction, adequate facility, adequate treatment method. It is my hope also, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to stress this, that the funds from this will very clearly not be made available for such things as drawing water out of the waste, dehydrating the waste, which some persons might try to utilize this kind of program for. That is a prob- Tern I expect the operator of the plant to meet through conventional financing sources and through his own resources. But it is my hope that this will be available to encourage novel, new a.nd particularly efficient methods as opposed to just encouraging more of the same kind of inefficient operation and to encourage utilization of old devices but with Federal financing. I do not believe that would be at all an appro- priate basis for me to come before this committee on. (The following letter w-as received subsequently from Representa- tive Dingell:) PAGENO="0360" 352 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 2, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public TVorks, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHATRMAN: I am concerned about the provisions of H.R. 15907, a bill to revise regulations governing Federal contributions to sewage treatment plants, as they would affect plans in Michigan to control water pollution by the construction of 210 new sewage treatment plants and enlargement of 126 existing plants. To launch this statewide program estimated to cost $1,200,000,000 the Michigan Legislature has placed a proposal to authorize a $335,000,000 bond issue on the ballot for November. If adopted, part of those funds would be used to "pre- finance" future Federal contributions to sewage plant construction, in accord- ance with provisions in existing Federal law. The Michigan Legislature has been willing to go ahead on the basis of the ex- press and implied promises in the 1966 Federal legislation, as has New York. I understand nearly a dozen States have similar plans in various stages of development. The passage of H.R. 15907 as introduced would substitute other provisions for financing future sewage treatment plants. This change would take place be- fore the people of Michigan have a chance to vote on the plan approved by the Michigan Legislature. I am sure you can appreciate that such an action would offer opponents of the Michigan water cleanup an opportunity to create uncertainty in the public mind about the State's program. I hope a way can be found to avoid placing Michi- gan's Clean Water Program in such jeopardy. Michigan spokesmen object to the proposals in H.R. 15907 which would divide sewage treatment plants into two classes, and offer 30-year contracts for Federal contributions to construction costs only to plants in areas serving more than 125,000 persons. This would limit this form of aid to 14 of Michigan's 83 coun- ties, and 106 of 335 communities planning construction. It would force sponsors of plants planned for 229 communities to rely on sharing in Federal year-to-year grants. The prefinancing provisions presently in the law apply equally to plants of large or small size. HR. 15907 also would deny the tax exemption privilege to the proposed Michigan bonds, and insist on user charges which would be unrealistic in some instances. I endorse the conclusions expressed by Ralph A. MacMullan, Direc- tor of the Michigan Department of Conservation, In his letter to you of April 24: "PL 84-660 as it stands now is a good law. We strongly believe that the amendments contained in H.R. 15907 would weaken, rather than strengthen water pollution abatement in Michigan. We urge that the State of Michigan be allowed to continue its battle against water pollution under the commit- ments made by Congress under the Clean Water Restoration Act." This need not preclude Congress from offering more explicit financing assur- ances to encourage future construction programs. Will you please include my letter in the record of hearings on this legislation. With every good wish, Sincerely yours, JOHN D. DINGELL, Member of Congress. Mr. BLATNIK. We have a letter here from Hercules, Inc., in support of your I-1.R. 16044 and encouraging the use of water soiuthle polymers in the separation of solids from liquid suspension. It will appear in the record at this point. (The letter from Hercules, Inc., follows:) HERCULES, INC., TVilmington, Dcl., April 18, 1968. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK. Re yhnvn house Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention of Maurice B. Tobin, legislative assistant). DEAR MR. BLATNIK: During the past seven years 1-lercules Incorporated has investigated the use of organic polyelectrolytes (water soluble polymers) in the PAGENO="0361" 353 separation of solids from liquid suspensions. Our research program has resulted in extensive trials at municipal waste treatment plants and we have proved that these materials significantly- improve solids removal. It has been demonstrated that typical waste treatment plants can increase solids removal by as much as 50 percent through the use of polyelectrolytes in their existing physical facilities. Little or no capital expenditure is required to use these chemicals, since a sim- pie mixing and feeding system, which is generally standard in municipal waste treatment plants, is the only equipment needed. The technology involving the use of polyelectrolytes has not been fully utilized by the municipalities because: (1) Present laws do not force immediate pollution abatement, and (2) Existing Federal subsidies encourage municipalities to construct ad- ditional facilities and rely on long range results instead of immediate abate- ment through use of chemicals. H.R. 16044 introduced by Congressman Dingell on March 19, 1968 would provide funds to increase the capability of existing municipal waste treatment systems, immediately reducing pollution from these sources. Hercules urges enactment of HR. 16044 which would expedite the cleaning up of our waterways. Yours very truly, S. H. HELLEKSON, General Manager. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Congressman. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Next we have a panel of witnesses from the American Petroleum Institute and also a representative from the American Mer- chant Marine Institute. I believe they are all together. Am I correct, Mr. Checket? Mr. E. S. Checket is the marine general manager of Mobil Oil Co., New York City. I believe Mr. Checket will give the first part of your panel statement, followed by Mr. P. N. Gammelgard and Mr. Pittman, from the Shell Oil Co., is available for questioning. I under- stand you have no statement. Mr. Ralph E. Casey-Mr. Casey, we understand you will join the panel in the interest of time. You have an interest in the subject matter? Mr. CASEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Checket, will you proceed? Please give your name and title for the record. OIL POLLIJTION CONTIlOL STATEMENT OP EVERETT S. CRECKET, MARINE `GENERAL MAN- AGER, MOBIL OIL CO., NEW YORK, N.Y., AND MEMBER OP AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE'S GENERAL COMMITTEE; ACCOMPANIED BY P. N. GAMMELG-ARD, VICE PRESIDENT Or ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTI- TUTE; JOHN W. PITTMAN, SHELL OIL CO.; AND RALPH E. CASEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC. Mr. CIJECKET. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Everett S. Checket. I am general manager of the marine transportation department of Mobil Oil Corp. I am also a member of the American Petroleum Institute's general committee, division o.f transportation, and it is in the latter capacity that I am appearing here today. I also have the pleasure of representing the Western Oil and Gas Association. PAGENO="0362" 354 Inasmuch as Mr. Gammelgard will also comment on the legislation now before you, my remarks will be limited to the effect of proposed section 19 of S. 2760, or H.R. 14000, on vessels. We are aware that your concern, as members of Congress, is how to strengthen our laws to protect the Nation's harbors, rivers and coast- lines. I can assure you that we, in the petroleum industry, recognize that both Federal law and international agreements need revision in order to afford adequate protection. Those of us who operate tanker fleets recognize that we-along with all those who transport oil or other substances capable of causing pollu- tion-have a responsibility not only to try to prevent pollution, but also to act swiftly to minimize potential damage from a discharge or substances into the environment. There is ample testimony to our acceptance of this responsibility in the many voluntary actions oil companies have taken to remove spills, restore beaches affected by oil spills, and to cooperate with local authorities in many harbor areas in purchasing and maintaining equipment to contain and remove spilled oil.. Many oil companies have been, and are continuing to spend consider- able time and money in research on new and more effective dispersants and emulsifiers to lessen the harmful effects of an oil spill and in the design of fixed and portable standby booms to he used from ships or shore. Also, through our socalled load on top procedures, and rigidly enforced controls during loading and unloading operations, we have made great progress toward eliminating pollution during our nor- mal operations. Since it is our understanding that section 19 of S. 2760 is intended to affect all vessels-including tankers, dry-cargo and passenger vessels, smaller commercial vessels, such as barges and tug boats on our rivers and harbors, plus pleasure craft-we fully support its basic objectives. Without some modifications, however, we can foresee some very rea.l problems in achieving its basic objectives. It will be our purpose in this sta.te.ment to enumerate the problems we see in the bill and suggest ways in which they might be overcome and the bill might be made more effective and workable. We should like to turn, at the outset, to what we feel is the most important part of the bill, namely section 19(e) dealing with removal of oil spills. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OVERLOOKED This section, as written, does not, in our view, accomplish the basic objective we all hope to achieve-namely the establishment of an effec- tive legal and monetary program for recovery of the costs of removing an oil spill. We can foresee a variety of circumstances under which it woul.d be impossible for the Secretary of the Interior to recover the costs of oil removal from the party who caused the spill. For example, a small vessel operator with limited overall assets could be virtually bankrupt as a result of an accident resulting in pollution. Another instance might be that of a company whose sole asset consists of one ship-and if that ship were seriously damaged or lost in the accident involving pollution-where could the cleanup funds come from? PAGENO="0363" 355 Then, too, a foreign shipowner causing pollution might not be accessible to the secretary for collection of costs resulting from pollu- tion. In this last example, bear in mind that we are speaking of all categories of ships-freighters, tankers, bulk cargo, and so on-which in international commerce constantly travel in and out of U.S. waters, and along with TJ.S.-fiag vessels are potential sources of pollution. The public interest will not be fully protected unless legislation per- taining to an obligation to remove an oil spill also provides a constant and reliable guarantee of an availability of funds-in other words, what we call financial capability. The bill ignores this fundamental condition and therefore might give to the Secretary of the Interior a meaningless right to recover his costs in removing a spill. We urge that this pivotal concept of financial capability be incor- porated in the bill. We would suggest incorporating a provision that: (1) Any vessel registered, enrolled, or documented under the laws of the United States or (2) Any foreign vessel entering a port of the United States must demonstrate its financial capability. Evidence of financial capability can take many forms which the legislation should recognize. INStJRANCE The most common form of providing financial capability is insur- ance. Demonstration of adequate coverage could be made by filing with the appropriate governmental authorities, at the time of registry or entry, a certificate of insurance, or an appropriate protection and indemnity `club certificate of entry or similar evidence of insurance coverage, including self-insurance. Such evidence would demonstrate coverage of the shipowners' potential liability for the cost of removing * a spill in the territorial waters of the United States and would assure that funds are available to cover the cost of removing spilled oil. Any such amendment concerning evidence of financial capability should also permit such capability to be established by other means, such as evidence of sufficient `corporate net worth within the United States, a voluntary deposit of assets within the United States, or a guarantee from a U.S. company of sufficient assets. We also would urge that this provision leave room for the accept- ance of possible international alternatives which may be adopted under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Orga- nization, more familiarly known as "IMCO." This could be done by granting to the Secretary discretion to accept any alternative con- tained in an international convention or treaty to which the United States becomes signatory. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Assuming the necessity of financial capability, it is essential that a shipowner's liability for the cost of removing a spill be subject to some practical limit, unrelate.d to existing or traditional limits of a ha- bihty. Without a limit, it would be impossible for many shipowners to establish financial capability. Most shipowners would undoubtedly try to obtain insurance in commercial markets against the risk of ha- bilit.y for the costs of removing a spill. But if this liability is not him- PAGENO="0364" 356 ited in any way, we are advised by the insurance industry that insur- ance would be practically unavailable. The potential risks of unlimited liability would be too large a burden for many small independent vessel, barge, or tugboat owners to assume, and would result in their elimination from the industry. But, if a reasonable and realistic limit is imposed, such operators could obtain the necessary insurance in the marketplace. We have a definite suggestion concerning what we think would be a realistic and reasonable limit on liability. There is, it seems to us, some relationship between the size of a vessel and the probable cost of removing an oil spill in which it is involved. Size is an indication not only of the amount of oil or other pollutants the vessel might carry, but also of the damage it might inflict on an- other vessel, causing the latter to pollute. Thus, a 1,000-ton oil barge would not have the same pollution potential as a 50,000-ton tanker. Likewise, although a tugboat might cause a tanker accident, it would hardly be likely to be an accident of Torrey Canyon proportions; whereas a large luxury liner could be the cause of a collision resulting in a spill of such magnitude. For these reasons, an escalating liability related to vessel size seems reasonable to us. We would, therefore, suggest that a vessel's liability for oil removal costs alone be limited to $250 per gross ton, with an overall maximum limit of $8 million. This should provide adequate funds for cleanup of spills except in an extreme case. For those very rare cases where the limit would not cover the cost of removing a spill, legislation, such as the Federal Disaster Assistance Act of 1950, referred to in the Presi- dent's Report on Oil Pollution of February 1968, would be available to the Secretary of the Interior. We believe that the limitation we suggest is in harmony with cur- rent international thinking and, at the same time, would give small individual shipowners, including the owners of barges on our rivers, a realistic liability they should be able to insure at a reasonable cost. Such a limitation of liability should be solely applicable to oil re- moval costs and should not be related to existing U.S. statutes per- taining to a vessel owner's rights to limitation of liability. HOLD NEGLIGENT PARTY LIABLE Another question raised by section 19(e) is whether it is just to hold a vessel owner or operator liable for reimbursing the Government for oil removal even if some other agent caused the discharge. Obviously a person should be liable for the consequences of his own negligence, but section 19(e) asks more than that. It makes no distinction be- tween the shipowner who is the victim of an "unavoidable accident" resulting in pollution and the willful or negligent polluter. Of course, to the man on shore it is of no consequence whether the oil that covers his beach was discharged willfully or acidentally. He wants it removed, as well he should. But at the same time the answer is not to protect one innocent party by making another rnnocent party pay, nor is it to excuse the guilty party while causing the innocent to pay. This would be contrary to long established concepts of justice and would place an economic burden on the shipping industry not placed by law on other segments of the business community. PAGENO="0365" 357 We all know that in other areas, such as automobiles, liability is based on fault. WThen a driver crashes into a properly parked auto- mobile, that driver, and not the owner of the parked car, is responsible for damages. Similarly, a tanker that is properly moored might be rammed by another vessel under circumstances clearly demonstrating that the other vessel and it alone was responsible for the collision and subsequent discharge of oil from the moored tanker. Nevertheless, sec- tion 19 (e) would hold the innocent vessel liable for cleaning ~ip the spill. Similarly, a vessel striking an unmarked or uncharted wreck or shoal would be liable, and the party truly at fault-perhaps a Govern- ment agency that failed to mark the wreck or shoal-would not be liable under this bill even though the spill was generated by its negligence. There are innumerable other possibilities of injustice-including that of a torpedoed vessel, which under section 19(e) would still be liable for cleanup. These injustices can be corrected by amending the bill to stipulate that, in all cases, the party actually at fault alone is liable. In other words, section 19(e) should hold the negligent party, whom it might now excuse, and release the innocent party, whom it might now hold. PERMIT SHIPOWNERS TO RECOVER COSTS FROM THIRD PARTY We recognize that action to remove a spill must be taken promptly and cannot await a decision as to which party is at fault in causing the polution. Therefore, while recommending that liability for the cost of removing a spill under section 19(e) should be predicated on fa~ilt,* we suggest further changes which would be fair and would, at the same time, encourage a shipowner to promptly remove a spili, irrespective of fault. To encourage such action on the part of shipowners the bill should provide that the party who caused the vessel to effect pollution is liable to the vessel, or the Federal Government, as appropriate, for the cost of removal. If so amended, 5. 2760 would permit a shipowner who incurred expenses in voluntarily removing an oil spill to recover his costs or a proportion of the costs from a third party, including Govern- ment, whose negligence caused or contributed to the spill. This sug- gestion is in accordance with traditional principles of admiralty law. PRESUMPTION OF FAULT Furthermore, while urging that legal liability be predicated on fault, we suggest a further change that would encourage a shipowner or operator to remove a spill promptly. This change would shift the burden of proof as to fault from the Secretary to the vessel owner or operator. This would mean that if, for example, the Secretary fo,und it neces- sary to institute an action to recover the costs of cleaning up a spill, the shipowner or operator would have to establish lack of negligence to escape liability. Such an amendment would give the Secretary an advantage he does not now enjoy. Under present law he must have evidence of willful- ness or gross negligence before he can proceed against a vessel. PAGENO="0366" 358 FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF FIELD We have one further important suggestion. S. 2760 should "preempt the field" by providing that no other Federal statutes shall be con- strued as including within their terms a discharge of oil and that no State or local government or administrative agency may impose on any vessel owner or operator any requirement, penalty, or liability with respect to cleanup of any discharge of oil into or on the terri- torial seas or navigable waters of the United States. "GOOD SAMARITAN" PROVISION As will be noted by Mr. Gammelgard, voluntary cooperative pro- grams to prevent and clean up oil spills have been hampered in the past by fear of liability for civil damages to third parties. There are times when the swift assistance of someone with appropriate equip- ment at or near the scene of an accident could help to prevent the spread of an oil spill, and thus minimize potential damage. I should therefore like to join Mr. 0-ammeigard in urging that a good samaritan provision, along the lines of the one he will suggest, be incorporated in this bill. We do have a few thoughts in connection with other portions of the bill. However, as Mr. Gammelgard will discuss these in detail, I will merely state here that we support his recommendations. Before concluding my statement, I should like to briefly summarize the major points of my testimony: One, the petroleum industry shares the concern of the public and of public officials over the problem of oil pollution. We fully support responsive and effective legislation `to help solve this problem. Two, we believe that section 19(e) as written does not adequately protect the public interest, since it overlooks the question of financial capability. Three, we urge amendments incorporating this concept of financial capaibility wbich, in its simplest form, means the insurability of the cost of removal of a spill. We urge further amendment of the bill to provide that liability for the costs of removing a spill is subject to a realistic limitation un- related to existing limitation of liability statutes. We believe the bill should be changed to excuse the innocent party from liability for the cost of removing a spill and hold the negligent party who caused the spill liable for the costs. We also suggest an `amendment stipulating that, whenever it ap- pears that a vessel discharged oil requiring removal, the Secretary of the Interior shall presume the shipowner or operator to be at fault until lack of fault has been established. We would like to see a provision in the bill specifically permitting a shipowner to recover his costs in removing an oil spill from a third party whose negligence is proved to have caused the spill. We belie~e this bill should "preempt the field," precluding State or other Federal action `with regard to discharge of oil by vessels. And, finally, we urge the adoption of a good samaritan provision to encourage the development of volui~tary mutual assistance programs to combat oil spills. PAGENO="0367" 359 In closing, I should like to thank the committee, in behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, for this opportunity to appear here today. We sincerely hope our comments will assist you in making this bill a more effective and workable instrument. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much for the statement, Mr. Checket. Mr. G-ammelgard, `do you want to continue with the statement or will this be the presentation for the panel? Mr. GAMMELGARD. I think if you asked your questions on Mr. Checket's part of our presentation, Mr. Chairman, that would probably be better. DISCUSSION OF WITNESS' RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. BLATNIK. My questions will be few at this point. There is a lot to digest in what is obviously a well-thought-out paper. At the outset, the suggestion, recommendation of an insurance type guarantee provision to insure financial capability to protect those who are injured by an oil spill as such is an intriguing one. It is the first time that it has been offered or presented before this committee in the presence of the chairman and it seems to make sense. Would I be correct if I were to say just to have a punitive pro- vision alone would not give too much guarantee to the parties that are injured by an oil spifi, either beach property owners or private resi- dents, or resort owners, or whatever they may be? Would I be correct in assuming to punish say a small operator with very limited fiscal means, give him a penalty provision, to try to squeeze some money out of him would be like the old debtors' law where a fellow in debt too long was thrown in prison until he paid his debt? He would never have an opportunity to get out of jail to earn money to pay his debt, so it is a self-defeating thing. Mr. CHECKET. You are quite correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. You do have an excellent point there. The party that is being hurt by them wants it removed regardless of who is responsible for it. Your reconmiendation shall receive our careful review and much more, certainly, validation than is possible in this limited time in this cursory review Of the recommendations, and we assure you it shall be given very careful scrutiny. On page 9 you state, in the middle of the page, you recognize that action to remove a spill must be taken promptly, and so forth. There- fore, while recommending that liability for the cost of removing a spill, and so forth, should be predicated on fault: "We suggest further changes which `would be fair and would, at the same time, encourage a shipowner to promptly remove a spill, irrespective of fault." I am not quite clear who would make a determination on fault and who particularly would make a determination as to who should do the actual cleaning up? Mr. OHECKET. Mr. Chairman, what we are suggesting here is that, particularly in the one example, the ship, even if it was rammed by another ship, that the ship polluting or causing the discharge would not wait to worry whether the other fellow was at fault, but he should PAGENO="0368" 360 promptly step in and take whatever actions can be reasonably taken at the time to minimize tile effects of the oil spill. are saying that no matter who i's at fault, prompt action mus be taken by everyone involved. Mr. BLATNIK. Would someone have to order them to take proper corrective action? Or is this voluntary understanding? Mr. CHEOKET. No, our suggestion here is they wait for no order of anyone, but they immediately take prompt action to minimize the spill. This could take many forms. This could take just moving the vessel out to the open seas without just waiting for orders from anyone, to use any and all means or measures available to combat the spill. Mr. BLATNIK. Without going into anymore details, on the bottom of page 10, I may call attention to something I will need much more explanation to understand. You state: "we have one further important suggestion. S. 2760 should `preempt the field' by providing that no other Federal statutes shall be construed as including," and so forth. I am sure you have good reasons for it and `good justifications, but what I am getting at, we will certainly have to consider the involve- ment of a State when it sets standards for waters within its jurisdic- tion involving State water standards approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Would not the States have a role to play in the monitoring system to determine whether or not certain pollution is exceeding the standards? Mr. CHECKET. No. Mr. Chairman, in that case, there would not be a conflict. I think what we are speaking of from just the marine side, the tanker side, is that there are agencies, Federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard, which issues regulations which would cover all areas that would assess fines. We are saying this bill *should prevail and there sould not be other regulations issued by the State which might be in conflict or duplicate the Federal legislation, so that we are responsi- ble to one body for uniform legislation. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CHECKET. I am intrigued by the possibilities of this creative suggestion you have brought to us. It is quite comprehensive it seems to me and is an entirely new and heretofore somewhat unexplored pos- sibility. I think it has obvious merit. I want to ask a question or two about that. First, I observed your comments on page 2 of your statement with reference to any voluntary actions oil companies have taken to remove spills, restore beaches affected by oil spills, cooperate with local author- ity, and further reference to considerable time and money spent in research and progress made toward eliminating pollution during your normal operations. EXPENDITURES BY THE OIL INDUSTRY FOR POLLUTION CONTROL I am familiar with some of that. As a matter of curiosity, would you, or perhaps Mr. Gammelgard, give us some relithle estimate as to how much money the `oil industry may spend in a given year on the question of pollution in general, pollution abatement research? PAGENO="0369" 361 * Mr. G-AMMELGARD. Mr. Chairman, I woitld like to attempt to answer Mr. Wright's question. Over the years, we have conducted surveys within the industry as to expenditures for both air and water pollution control facilities from the industry's land-based facilities in the United States. And these, as I think you would `all expect have been going up quite markedly in recent years. The 10 years prior to `and including 1965, for water conservation and ~water pollution prevention measures, industry installations, we invested over $150 million in equipment alone. Now, this is strictly money put into `brick and'mortar and so forth, In the year 1966, a survey that `we have just completed shows capital expenditures of $79 million; in 1967, $113 million; in 1968, a projected $145 million. These are investment figures, not including operating costs, which are su'bstantial and amount to somewhere around $50 million per year not including administrative costs nor research and development. In research and development, we have spent some $22 million in water pollution research in the last 3 years. Mr. WRIGHT. $22 million in research? You mentioned last year $145 million. Mr. GAMMELGARD. This current year, 1968, $145 million. Mr. WRIGHT. Last year $113 million? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Will the gentleman yield? Do I understand that is just a capital investment `for a pollution abatement control facility, just for the brick and mortar of the facility itself, installation? Is that correct? Mr. GAMMELGARD. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. All of this is related to abatement of pollution? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. That is considerably more than half of what the F'ederal Government is paying, is that right? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Well, I thin'k that the Federal Government for' the fiscal year 1968, for water pollution control measures for Federal facilities, asked for $51 million. I do not know what the actual appropriation was. Mr. WRIGHT. We had something like $203 million last year for program grants and this year I think it `was testified yesterday that the request in the budget is for some $225 million for the nationwide grant program. This includes the amount that you spent in moving away the salts, for example, to keep them from getting into the water tables `where you are drilling iiiiand? Mr. GAMMELGARD. This does include production expenditures in water pollution control. Mr. Wright, regarding that $51 million figure I gave you, this is not in the sewage-treatment plant grant program; this was a request for Federal facilities such as Army and Navy bases, and so forth. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I understand the distinction which you made; yes, to the Federal Government's o~wn facilities. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir. 94-370-GS----24 PAGENO="0370" 362 Mr. WRIGHT. I was thinking in terms of the total national program. `Well, that is amazing. It is amazing also to see the acceleration of this type of activity. I think you said 10 years, completing in 1965, the industry spent $150 million, inclusively, or an average of some $15 million a year, and now you are up-in 1966, $79 million; 1967, $113 million; and in 1968, $145 million. That is quite a rapid acceleration. I suppose this reflects the recognition on the part of industry and business in general as well as the general public, of the growing iIn- portance of pollution abatement. I am delighted to see this kind of response on the part of this particular industry. I do not know, perhaps other industries are doing similar things too. I hope they are. Do you know of any other industry, for example, that may be approaching those kind of investments? Mr. GAMMELGARD. I do not know of any, Mr. Wright. I know that industry in general is greatly increasing the amounts they are spend- ing for both air and water pollution control facilities. I think this is a development that is going along in the public sector, in the private sector, and the Government sector simultaneously. Mr. WRIGHT. It is extremely heartening, because what we had hoped to do with this program was not to preempt the field in the sense that everybody would turn the job over to the Federal Govern- ment, simply because we were spending more money on it, but rather to stimulate and encourage more private and local expenditures. I think it can be demonstrated that we have encouraged more local ex- penditures by local governmental units during the first 8 years or 9 in which we had contributed a total of some $500 million on the part of the Government in the grant programs, we had stimulated local investments of some $3 billion in total, so I think that was a demon- strable success~ Now, if in the total effort and the attention that we have been able to direct to it, we have encouraged industry-and I do not know that the oil industry is typical, it is probably atypical, but even if we en- couraged one industry to encourage its private endeavors to this extent, I think it is magnificent. AVAILABILITY OF INSURANCE With respect to your suggestion, the first suggestion that we require a showing of financial capability on the part of anybody who might have a capacity to pollute waters by oil spills, it seems to me that the key suggestion contained in that program is the requirement of in- surance liability. This is not, if course, an entirely new concept. Many States require anyone driving an automobile in the State to have proof of liability insurance. Do you have reason to believe this insurance can be obtained? You mention a maximum liability of $8 million, which is pretty high. Do you think insurance companies would make a program of that kind available? . Mr. CHECKET. Of course, we have looked into this matter, have dis- cussed it with both the American Marine Underwriters as well as the United Kingdom-Scandinavian Underwriters, and we have been PAGENO="0371" 363 assured that this insurance would be available, particularly coupled with a limit established as a limit of liability, and liability only with fault, that this could be available at a reasonable cost. Mr. WRIGI-IT. You are reasonably sure that it could be? Mr. CHEOKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. This is very interesting, because yesterday, without any detailed thought at all of this nature, I had posed a question to- I do not remember whether it was the Secretary of the Interior or one of his associates-_as to whether the Department of the Interior had thought anything about requiring liability insurance. The reply, as I recall, was to the effect that they feared that the limit would be too small and the insurance industry would not be willing to sell liability insurance in sufficient size to accommodate this. You indicate to me that you made these contacts? Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Mr. ROBERTS. If I may interject, some of the outstanding insurance people in the United States and maybe Great Britain also would say they would take this risk I am sure. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I will indicate my great interest, then. Your suggestion of a reasonable and realistic liability related to the gross tonnage of the vessel- Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. And therefore to its potential pollution capacity, it seems very logical. Your specific suggestion is that the vessel's lia- bility be limited to $250 per gross ton with an average maximum limit of $8 million. I do not know of any of these disasters which have cost as much as $8 million. Mr. EDMONDSON. We have testimony regarding one that did. Mr. WRIGHT. This would be the Torrey CanyonY Of course, that was the biggest one, the Torrey Ganyon. Do you have knowledge of the cost relating to the other cleanups of these spills? Mr. CIIECKET. Other than the Torrey Canyon, the only other one of really significant money that we know of was the report we heard this morning from the representative of Puerto Rico, where the cost of removal of the oil was estimated to be approximately $500,000. Mr. WRIGHT. $500,000? Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. I see. That would be well within the limit. Mr. BLATNIK. The testimony by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico late this morning, including I believe he stated the Com- monwealth of the Department of Public Works as of April 15 had spent $285,000 in cleaning operations. It is estimated that their final cost will run in excess of $500,000. You are correct. But the problem is not quite that simple, getting back to the fault recommendation you bring. Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Clarifying jurisdiction. It has been called to my at- tention, on this occasion, that six government agencies, some from the PAGENO="0372" 364 Commonwealth and some from the United States proper, from the mainland, arrived at the scene, and each was unsure as to which should do what, how much, or just when. So obviously it is an area that will require real careful evaluation, planning, and just to determine who has the authority to enforce work. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this brings us to this so-called Good Samaritan suggestion that you have. I am sorry that our colleague, Jim Howard, is not here. I-Ic macic an intensive study on the spot of the Puerto Rican disaster and was telling me yesterday that one of the companies, I forget which one it was, at first had offered to come in and clean it up voluntarily and then, apparently upon consultation, with their legal officers, had to withdraw the suggestion for fear their voluntary act of cleaning it up might subject them to civil suits on the basis that they had assumed liability. This, of course, is quite at cross purposes with their impulse to try to be helpful. So that you believe we could incorporate into the bill some so-called Good Samaritan provision Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT (continuing). Which would encourage immediate vol- untary effort to clean up by, specifically, exempting this fellow from liability placed upon his good deed? Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. We think this would be a very constructive amendment to the bill. Mr. WRIGHT. It seems so to me. I think it is a very constructive sug- gestion all the way through. I think it bears very close sympathetic scrutiny by the committee, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate the gentleman on a creative and constructive approach, certainly not a negative approach. It seems to me it does rather little good to pass a law that says some- body is going to have to pay for this if the person who is required to pay does not have money to pay. It is the old question of getting blood out of a turnip. Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. So perhaps we need two things: First, some machinery to authorize and equip the Federal authority to move in rapidly and effect the cleanup if someone else does not do so, and secondly, a pro- gram of this type to establish liability, to require financial responsi- bility on the part of those who may incur liability, and to encourage voluntary acts of good will without the assumption of liability when the party is not the guilty party. Mr. CHEOKET. Yes, sir. We fully support that. Mr. WRIGHT. I think it is very constructive. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will not belabor the point at this time. Mr. BEATNIK. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, can we assume there will be further testimony, both on details of the "Good Samaritan" provision and also PAGENO="0373" 365 on the cost of the insurance proposal that has been suggested -from these witnesses? Mr. CHECKET. On the insurance proposal, if I can take the second one first, we would not have actual figures as to costs, neither we, and I presume not the insurance witnesses. This is a matter we have gone into at some length. We know we have been assured they will be of reasonable cost; but as premiums are set, they depend partially upon the experience factor of each individual owner, as to whether he pays something more or something less. And his cost factor would vary from year to year depending on his experience factor. Mr. WRIGHT. Do you know whether there is any other country in the world today which requires this insurance or bonding protection in connection with ships operating? Mr. CE1ECKET. I know of no other country at this time. It is cer- tainly a question that we would hope would be considered on an inter- national basis through the machinery of the CMI and IMCO. Mr. EDMONDSON. On the "Good Samaritan" proposal, do you have some specific language to propose on it? Mr. CHECKET. We actually do have some language that we have prepared with respect to the various points that have been made in my statement that would really incorporate in proposed legislation every- thing that we have recommended, and I know we would be prepared to submit this draft of recommended changes to the committee. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I would like to state for the record that I agree with the gentleman from Texas that we have had some very constructive and helpful testimony so far, and I think it is also general knowledge, at least in our part of the country, that the petroleum industry and leaders in the petro- leum industry have been substantial contributors to conservation movements and organizations. They are very keenly interested in the overall problem of improving the quality of our waters and our environment. And I think this is a plus for the petroleum industry that is not generally understood in some parts of the country. I cer- tainly know that in our State, some of the real leadership in this field is supplied by the leaders in the petroleum industry. Mr. CHEOKET. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Mr. PORN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to join my colleagues in com- mending the petroleum industry for its fine testimony here today. I am interested in this "Good Samaritan" clause suggest-ion, and the insurance also. Perhaps we would have an opportunity for further questioning later on in the hearing. As an individual member of the committee, and I would say for other members of the committee also, I am impressed by the amount of expenditures this great industry has spent to alleviate this problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OWNERSHIP AND TONNAGE OF VESSELS Mr. Checket, on page 3 of your testimony, I am a little con-fused, you say there in paragraph 2 that you can foresee a- variety of circum- PAGENO="0374" 366 stances under which it would be impossible for the Secretary of the Interior to recover the costs of oil removal from the party who caused the spill. You cite several examples of small vessel operations, with limited overall assets, a company whose sole asset consists of one ship, and a foreign shipowner. Now, as I see on the first page of your statement, or the second, you are with the Mobil Oil Corp. Well, none of those circumstances fits you, does it? Mr. CHECKET. No, sir. We would not say that it would fit us, nor probably any other of the major U.S. oil companies. Mr. MCCARTHY. What percentage would you say is in these three categories you cite on page 3? Mr. CHECKET. I do not believe I could give you any accurate per- centage, although we could certainly further try to have a breakdown. Mr. MCCARTHY. Have you any idea how many oil tankers there are in the world? Mr. CHECKET. Well, the oil tankers today, I do not have the figures in numbers, but they certainly total over 140 million tons. Mr. WRIGHT. Would the gentleman yield? Perhaps you missed the point. We think such legislation as this ap- plies to ships owned by oil companies, but it would be a very small percentage of the ships. Mr. CHECKET. Right. The oil companies, generally, at least the major oil companies that we know of, own between 45 and 50 percent of their tonnage. Mr. WRIGHT. You are talking about tankers, only? Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. But this applies not alone to tankers- Mr. CHECKET. No, sir. Mr. WRIGHT (continuing). But to all kinds of ships? Mr. CHECKET. All kinds of ships. Mr. WRIGHT. Tankers are not the only thing that are known to break up and spill oil, are they? Mr. CHECKET. That is correct. Mr. MCCARTHY. So you do not know w~hat the tonnage is as rep- resented by the major oil companies in the United States. Mr. CHECKET. Offhand, no. We can certainly supply the data. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think it would be very interesting to get an idea of what we are talking about. in terms of the small ves~& operator, how much that represents; the single company would be one ship, foreign shipowners-I realize, of course, this is a global operation and companies like yourselves, while they are large, you just do not know what you represent. . . Mr. CHECKET. I should like to, also, point out to you, sir, that it is not just the tonnage itself, it is the laydown capability. As an example, if the barge shuttling in the harbor over a period of a year just by shuttling back and forth, carries a substantial amount of eit.l~r oil or other types of products; whereas, you could have a tanker that is running from the Persian Gulf to the United States east coast that might make only six trips a year. So this is another problem that does get involved when we are looking at pollution PAGENO="0375" 367 capability. It is not just a number of ships; it is where they operate and how frequently they operate that creates some of the other problems here. ACT OF WAR Mr. MCCARTHY. I notice on page 9 you talk about other possibilities including that of torpedoed vessels. Do you feel this would be a problem? Mr. CHECKET. I do not know that it would be a problem except in the case of an act of war. That would be the only problem as we would see it. Mr. MCCARTHY. We could not collect from the guy that sunk it, I do not think. Mr. CHECKET. No, sir. We think in an act of war the ship that was torpedoed should not necessarily be liable for the pollution, both criminally and possibly civilly, and for the cost of removal, if he was torpedoed during wartime. WASTE OIL FROM SERVICE STATIONS Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, just one more question of Mr. Gammelgard, Mr. Chairman. Another aspect of this whole oil pollution problem that we have not touched upon, and I do not at least see it in the testimony of these gentlemen, is the problem that is very acute in our area and I suspect it is all over the country. Now, we have information established by the public works depart- ment of the city of Buffalo that the major source of oil pollution in Buffalo Harbor is the hundreds of service stations in the area who, partly as a result of the removal of the excise tax on oil, now find the crankcase oil that has been drained, is virtually valueless. In some cases they even have to pay to have it taken away. In the old days they could get maybe $15 or so for it a year; now it is worthless. What most of them do, they just flush it down the Buffalo sewer system. Just at this very time of the year, we have one awful problem, be- cause the ice is beginning to break up. All winter long this oil builds up behind this ice bridge and just at this time it all comes down. We had last year the worst catastrophe in the history of Buffalo in oil pollution. I know you do not own all these service stations, but as the industry you say you are doing so much-and I am impressed and I really am surprised at the approach you have taken, I am very favorably im- pressed with what you have said here, and you cite on page 2 the many voluntary actions you have taken. I think they are impressive. But is there any way within the industry, without getting into more legisla- tion, that something could be done about this problem of flushing that many millions of gallons of crankcase oil down the municipal sewer system? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Mr. McCarthy, we recognize this as a problem in the industry. It is also a problem outside of the industry, such as the person who buys his oil from one of the mail order type stores or from PAGENO="0376" 368 tire or auto supply stores. What that person does with hiS used crank- case oil, we do not know. I have questioned a few people who buy oil from such sources and the only way they could find to get rid of it was either to dump it out in some vacant lot, or down the street sewer. This is certainly something we do not like to see and to the extent that we can help our stations in solving this problem, we will. WTe have made an extensive survey of over 800 service stations located in-large cities, small cities, and in rural areas in various parts of the United States. The survey was made last year and it showed that some 2 per- cent admitted dumping oil down the sewer as the only way of getting rid of it. We do not think that is the way to go about it. We are now ap- proaching the problem on an interdivisional basis in the industry, with refining, research, marketing, and transportation involved to help the dealer where the reclaimer has gone out of business due to those fac- tors that you have talked about, and they are real factors in his prob- 1cm. So we hope that we will be able to alleviate this problem. However, I do not think that this is a problem for Federal legisla- tion. I think that a city that has this problem-and it seems to he concentrated in certain areas of the country while in others it is pretty well taken care of by the recla.imers-is to pass a local ordi- nance with a stiff fine that if the service station operator is caught dumping the oil in the station drain, that he has a fine to pay to the city. I think this can be done by city ordinance. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, those exist already. They would have to have a guy at every manhole to enforce that. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Pardon me, sir, I think they could make them keep a record of their oil and how did they dispose of it. This is done in some cities where they come in and say, "Where is your receiptV' Or "How did you get rid of your oil ?" Mr. MCCARTHY. They have an ordinance like that in Buffalo, but it does not work. They just do not have the personnel to enforce it. I do not say we should get into this, and I certainly commend your efforts within the industry to tackle it and help your stations, because these little fellows are looking to you, big brother, Socony, Mobil, Shell, and so forth, to help them out of this thing. Mr. G-AMMELGARD. I am sure they are. Mr. MCCARTHY. I hope you will come to grips with it, because otherwise the outcry is going to be such that we will be having a bill in here to deal with this and I do not like to see that. But certainly this is a major problem and I certainly wish you well in your efforts within the industry to come to grips with it. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to express my appreciation to the oil industry for what they have clone in this effort. I am Particularly grateful, Mr. Chair- man, that the president of the API is a former distinguished col- league of ours. We are real proud of the work all of them are doing. T'hcnk you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. PAGENO="0377" 369 PENALTY PROVISIONS Mr. CRAMER. I have some questions. but I will try to keep to a miii- imum, because 1 do think there are a few that need to be asked to help clarify the record a little bit. For instance, as I understand it, under House bill 15906, in addition to liabilities, cleaning up, there is also, on page 4, subsection (c), will- fully violating, $2,500 fine or imprisonment for a year, criminal lia- bility; again, (d), owner or operator who violates provisions of this section or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000, right? And (e) is any vessel other than a public vessel in violation of this section or any regulation shall be liable for civil penalty of not more than $10,000. Now, that is in addition to what you basically have been discussing, right in the way of penalties, requirements, and so forth? Mr. CHECKET. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What happens to the enforcement when someone other than the owner or operator are responsible? Let me give you an example. How about members of crews, ships strangers to the salvors or others who have dealings with the ship, or others colliding with her? Mr. CHECKET. I think I understand what you mean, sir. We would certainly support any legislation that would assess the fines or mon- etary penalties or penal provisions against the party who was found to be at fault in the pollution; that is, other than `the owner or opera- tor of the vessel who actually discharged'the oil. Mr. CRA~IER. We got into the $10,000 under (e). You have any vessel other than a public vessel involved in violation of this section or any regulation shall be liable for civil penalty of not more than $10,000. That is without regard to whether there is any responsibility in the handling of that vessel. I do not know whether an act of God is excluded under t.hat or not think it is applicable. In a way, even an act of God would be included. Is that not the way you read it? I am having difficulty reading it otherwise. Mr. CASEY. Mr. Cramer, I believe that-and I am referring really more to H.R. 14000 rather than the bill you referred to, the section is a little bit different-but both (c) and (d) refer back to (b). in other words, (b) establishes what is the unlawful discharge of oil. There are exceptions in (b) for unavoidable collision on emergency affecting life and property, and so forth. in the report of the Senate committee explaining the (b), they do say that (b) imposes liability without fault. Now, strangely enough- Mr. CRAMER. Absolute liability. Mr. CASEY. Although there are exceptions, the implications you have to establish have to come within one of the exceptions. Mr. CRAMER. Unavoidable accident. Mr. CASEY. Negligence. If it is avoidable- Mr. CRAMER. You have the burden of proving it comes within the exceptions. PAGENO="0378" 370 Mr. CASEY. It is a very proper interpretation. But I want to point out (c), which is the criminal section, refers to the violation of (b) , but it says you have to willfully violate (b). How you willfully violate a section that imposes liability without fault I do not know. Mr. CRAMER. I do not understand a lot of the draftsmanship. Mr. CASEY. I think the draftsmanship in the bill is very poor. Mr. CRAMER. Now, we lack. unfortunately, complete expertise or substantial expertise in the field, so if someone in your organization or both could submit language to carry out some of these recommenda- tions, to take care of some o,f these problems, I would like to see it and give it some consideration. Mr. CASEY. It might be appropriate for me to say at this point, I represent the American Merchant Marine Institute. Our position is entirely different, but not inconsistent entirely, with the American Petroleum Institute. My full statement is quite lengthy. Mr. C1n~MER. We will get both of them. We will have to marry the two somehow, somewhere in drafting. Mr. BLATNIK. Let the Chair say there obviously will be need for us to consider further change, not only with you but with other `agen- cies `of the Government or in the Department of `the Interior, and other people, insurance people. We have two good witnesses coming with more detail. We hope to be able to contact you. Mr. CI-TEcIdET. Be happy to. Mr~ Br~rNIIc To enter the discussion and work in the formula-tive stage. Because there is going to be I think a long period of digestion that has `to take place before you come out with a- solid proposition. We do aim and hope to and intend to come out with the soundest proposi- tion as combined judgment of this committee will make it possible. If `there are no further questions- -Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Casey. Mr. CASEY. I would like, respectfully, to request an opportunity sometime before you close your hearings to preseiit the position of the American Merchant Marine Institute. Mr. BI~TNu~. Yes. Do you have any additional testimony? Mr. CASEY. Yes. My statement- is quite different from the statement of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. BLATNIK. I do not understand. I see. Mr. CASEY. When I agreed to sit- as a member of the panel, I thought. I would have an independent right to present our own position. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, you do. Mr. CRAMErm. You defend your independent rights. [Laughter.] Mr. CASEY. I think it is quite `too late to do it today. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Casey, we have a colleague of ours who has been waiting for some time today. Could you wait- for awhile? We have two witnesses from London who are hopeful of leaving this evening. Be- tween the long -committee `hearing and the tornadlo warning outside- I do not want -to disturb an one-[iaughte.rl-I thought you might know about. This is the safest 1)-lace to be. WTe will find out. We have an excellent panel of conservationists in the forefron-t of this battle for `the la-st 20 years, the Chair can recall. PAGENO="0379" 371 You have been patient waiting for 2 days, now all of today to be heard, but will you wait for a while, Mr. Casey? So the gentlemen from the American Petroleum Institute thank you. The staff shall keep in contact with you for consultation. Mr. Gammelgard. Mr. GAMMELGARD. May I proceed now, Mr. Chairman? Mr. 1~TRIGHT. Mr. Chairmau, I was just curious what was proposed with respect to the statement of Mr. Gammelgard. Mr. BLATNIK. Oh, I thought this was .a joint statement. `Mr. GAMMELGARD. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, for the misunder- standing. Mr. Checkett gave the first portion of it. I have the second portion, which deals with shore installations. Mr. BLATNIK. You have a separate statement? I am sorry, I did not understand. I thought this was a joint, statement which was to be pre- sented by Mr. Checket by both of you. Do you have a `separate statement? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, I do. May I proc.eed with that? Mr. BLATNIK. How many pages is it? Mr GAMMELGARD Well I `think it is `~bout 13 I can submit this, Mr. Chairman, if you prefer. Mr. CRAMER. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, would it be an. imposition to come back tomorrow? I have some other questions to ask, too. Mr. GAMMELGARD. I \vould be pleased to èome backtomorrow. Mr~ BLATNIK. Wha~t is the schedule for tomorrow? ` (Discussion off `the record.) " . Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Gammelgard, would you proceed with your statement. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I will brief this. ` I am appearing today in behalf of the.API and `the \\Testern Oil and Gas Association, and the National Petroleum Refiners Association. I will skip around a little bit. I would like to start a't the bottom of page 2. Mr. BLATNIIc. This statement, by the way, will appear `in its entirety at this point.. (The prepared statement of Mr. Gammelgard follows:) STATEMENT OF P. N. GAMMELGARD My name is P. N. Gammelg~ard. I `am Vice President of Environmental Af- fairs, American Petroleum Institute, and director of the Institute's Committee for Air `and Water Conservation. On behalf of the Institute and the Western Oil and Gas Association, which I am also representing here today, I would like to thank the Committee for this chance `to comment on the important legislation now before you-S. 2700. To begin, I should like to empha'size that our `industry recognizes the urgency of developing better means of protecting our water and coastlines from discharges of oil or other potentially harmful `substances. I can assure you that we favor doing all that ~an be done to reduce the like- lihood `of accidental spills `of oil. Moreover, we are seeking to cooperate in every way possible with government-at all levels-to assure that swift `action is taken to minimize the h'armful effects of such spills regardless of how they occur. Before discussing specific provisions of S. 2760, I would like to make a few general o~servations concerning oil pollution in the context of the nation's overall effort to control w~.ter pollution. PAGENO="0380" 372 PROGRESS UNDER THE WATER QUALITY ACT I am sure I needn't remind the members of this Committee of the many months `of effort and the extensive discussions that culminated in the 1905 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. That important `legislation, which is just now beginning to be implemented, is far more than a step forward. It is a comprehensive program for effective action to protect and enhance the quality `of the nation's waters. The excellent response of the states to the challenge of setting water quality standards-within a tight time schedule-has justified the confidence of the Congress `in the ability of the states to do the jo'b. Already, `as a result of the sense of urgency generated by all this standard- setting activity, one can see signs of real progress. Within my own industry, for example, almost every week the tra'de papers carry a story of plans for some major improvement in an oil facility's waste water trOatment system. For these reasons, I am confident that the Water Quality Act of 1905, if given a fair trial, will prove effective in achieving `a `high degree of water quality con- trol. I might add that-under that act-we can look forward to orderly progress in `reducing any type of pollution-including oil pollution-that may result from inadequate or improper waste dispOsal practices. FEDERAL CONTROL OF OIL RELEASES FROM SHORE FACILITIES This brings me to what we in the petroleum industry `believe to be one of the most important questions raised by S. 2700. This i's the question of whether ad- d'itiona'l federal legislation is needed or actually c'an `bring about better contrOl of accidental oil releases-or releases of any other common pollutant-from shore facilities. Federal regulation of vessels within `our territorial waters i's clearly desirable because vessels move from place to place. Regulation of m'o~ile sources of pol- lution by multiple jurisdictions is just not practical. In th'e air pollution control field, for quite similar reasons, `Congress has provided for federal regulation of vehicles, but has `left control of stationary Sources of air pollution to the states. Traditionally, Congress h'as also left control of sta'ti'otia'ry sources of water pol- lution to the states, `believing th'at-be~ause the states are closest `to the problem- they are in a `better position both to determine their needs and to carry out `the huge job of policing and enforcement. Thus, in the Declaration `of Policy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the following `statement `appears: "* * * it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and `protect the primary responsibilities and `rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution * * *" The `declaration goes `on to say: "Nothing in this Act shall `be `construed a's impairing or in any manner affect- ing any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States." In the general enforcement section `of the act-Section 10-the following state- ment appea'rs: "Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters' shall `be encouraged and shall not . . . be displaced by Federal enforcement action." As we see it, the net effect of including shore installations in 5. 2700 now before you would be to render `the policy declaration `of the Water Pollution Control Act meaningless, and to open the door to direct federal regulation of not only oil as a pollutant but of eve'ry water pollutant from `every possible source along every waterway in the nation. NEED NOT SHOWN The recent joint report on oil pollution by the departments of Interior and Transportation places great stress on the po.~sibiJtiy of oil pollution from shore installations. The `report cites statistics on the quantity of oil be'ing handled in commerce an'd `points `to its pollution pot eutiaL As we see it, such figures by themselves do not build a plausible ease for federal regulation of shore facilities. The figures show that there are huge amounts of oil being handled every year. ~et to find just three significant shore PAGENO="0381" 373 mishaps to cite-one of which did not even involve oil-the departments had to search the records back to 1962. Even the largest shore spill cited was only one- one thousandth of one percent of all the oil handled in the United States that year. Federal occupation of any field ought to be based on demonstrated needs, not merely on possibilities-and there ought to be some evidence of state failure or inability to do what is required. In our opinion, it would be a mistake to abandon or bypass the orderly proce- dures established in the 1905 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, before they have even been given a trial. So fair the Secretary of the In- terior has approved water quality standards covering all common water pollut- ants-including oil-for a majority of the states. Hopefully, the other states will soon also `receive approval of their proposals. In no case we know of has approval of any state's `standards been held up or refused `becau'se of imperfections in proposals for `dealing `with pollution by oil. Clearly, if the Secretary of the Interior has reason to believe any state has not made adequate provision `for dealing with oil pollution, `he has the authority, under present law, to withhold approval of the `state"s standard's and implementa- tion plans, or, if necessary, to set and enforce standards of his own. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CONTROL OF SHORE INSTALLATIONS As a practical matter, the federal government would probably find it difficult to exercise `effective control over all shore installations. It must `be remembered that S. 2760 would apply to countless thousands of shore installations, both little and big, most `of which have no connection with the oil industry. Included would `be facto'ries `and utilities that use oil for fuel, lubrication, or cooling. And many other u'sers would be affected a's well. Although attention is naturally focused on more obvious, readily identifiable potential source:s of oil-such as sho'reside terminal an'd loading facilities an'd refineries-the fa'ct i's that these facilities are not a major factor in the overall oil polluti'on problem. T'he need for `special precautions at such facilities has long been recognized, and therefore, the risk of pollution is actually smaller there than elsewhere. Many less obvious on-shore sources, which 5. 2760 would not cover, can and do contribute to accidental `oil pollution. For example, hundreds of gallons of fuel oil recently showed up in a major East `Coast ha:rbor. Investigation by the port authority revealed that the oil had leaked from a fuel storage tank in the basement `of a city school into a sewer `and eventually the `harbor. It is `difficult to see how either ,federal or state regulation could help in `such instances. It is difficult to see how the federal government could deal more effectively with `such problems than the states. It `seems quite possible that federal involve- ment would tend to slow down, rather `than expedite, `action in local problem situations. 1~Ioreover, it would take unn'ecessary dupl'ication of existing state and local enforcement `personnel. There is another consideration. In view of the penalties-both criminal and civil-that could be imposed under S. 2760, some shore installations might be less inclined to admit responsibility for an accidental `discharge if they could avoid doing so. T'hus the number of unacknowledged spills from various sources could well increase. In short, direct federal regulation of shore installations would establish a precedent that is inconsistent with the spirit of the Water Pollution Control Act; it is not justified on the basis of need; it holds little promise of providing better solutions than state and local control; and it could actually discourage present sincere efforts to solve the problem on a local basis. COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS AT MAJOR HARBORS This brings me to something I think the Committee will be interested to hear about. I am referring to cooperative efforts of petroleum companies and others to provide for swift action to contain and remove spilled oil at major harbors and along major waterways where petroleum cargo vessel traffic creates a potential for such spills. Briefly, these efforts follow this general pattern: The oil companies and other industries w-ith terminal facilities on the harbor meet with representatives of interested government agencies, such as the local PAGENO="0382" 374 port authority, the fire department, the state police, the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, and, in a few instances, the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration. Usually, a harbor pollution abatement committee is formed-with both in- dustry and government members-to assess local needs and devise a procedural plan. The oil companies and other industries underwrite the cost of most-and in some cases all-of the emergency equipment purchased, such as floating booms, skimming devices, or pumping equipment. Lines of communication are set up, and the duties and responsibilities of each of the goverumerit agencies and industries are defined. Usually, the local port authority or fire department assumes responsibility for storage and deployment of equipment and the oil companies agree to remove the oil once it has been contained. There were only a handful of these cooperative programs just a year ago. But right now more than 25 programs are either in effect or being organized. Eventually, we would hope to have an active program at every major harbor in the nation, but there is one serious stumbling-block-and one that the Congress could help to remove. "GOOD SAMARITAN" PROVISION Although our enthusiasm to get more of these programs underway is very strong, a question has been raised concerning the possibility of liability to third parties for accidents during a cooperative cleanup operation. Because of this question, some companies have been reluctant to agree to lend manpower assist- ance in cleaning up a spill for which somebody else's vessel is responsible. One way to resolve this problem would be to incorporate an appropriate Good Samaritan clause in the legislation now before the Committee. Under such a clause, any person who voluntarily assisted a vessel owner or operator in cleaning up spilled oil would be relieved of liability for civil damages except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct. If such a provision is adopted, I am confident the response of the petroleum industry will be both positive and prompt. OTHER PROVISIONS OF S. 2760 I w-ould now like to comment on several provisions of S. 2760. As Mr. Checket indicated in his statement, the bill contains a number of provisions-in addition to Section 19 (e ) -that are of concern to us. First of all, we fully support the criminal provision of S. 2760, Section 19(c), as applied to vessels. There is, however, one foreseeable problem in its applica- tion, as well as in the application of the civil-penalty provision, Section 19(d). Both provisions prescribe penalties for discharges of oil, but, as "oil" and "discharge" are defined, severe federal penalties could be exacted even for a very minor, harmless discharge. Clearly this does not reflect the true intent of the bill. Therefore, w-e urge that the definition of "oil" in Section 19(a) be modified slightly to read: "Oil means substantial floating oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with other matter.' This definition would give both the potential polluter and the on-the-scene enforcement officer some guidance, in interpreting the statute, as to w-hat conduct is intended to be prohibited. Also, in Section 19(c), the criminal provision would apply only to the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation, or to their employees. But it is conceivable that others-such as vandals or saboteurs-might also be guilty of willful act. Thus, we urge that the words "or any other person" be added to this subsection-and, of course, that the reference to shore installations be deleted. I will not comment in detail on Section 19(e) or the overall question of liability for costs of oil removal, since Mr. Checket has already done so. I would like to point out, however, that `S. 2760 contains no definition of "remove" or "removal" and thus provides no guidance as to what is expected. Because actual physical removal is often impractical, a literal interpretation of `the term "removal" would be unreasonable in many cases. Therefore. we urge that a definition of the term `be included in the bill, and we suggest the following language: "`refl1ove' or `removal' means the `taking of all appropriate PAGENO="0383" 375 and reasonable measures to mitigate potential damage of oil discharged into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines." I ~hould now like to turn to Section 19(h) of S. 2760, which describes the regulatory responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior. As written, Item (1)' of this subsection requires the Secretary to prescribe the methods and procedures to be followed in removing oil from water and shorelines. To anyone who has read the accounts of attempts to ameliorate the effects of the Torrey Canyon and Ocean Eagle disasters-or the recent report to the Presi- dent by the Departments of Interior and Transportation-it should be quite clear that no one yet is in a position to do what `this provision asks of the Secretary. Oil spill removal is a field in which there are few experts-where every promis- ing new idea deserves a trial. We suggest, in fact, `that the bill should provide funds for `federal participation in the research effort in this area, just as it does for acid mine drainage and eutrophication research. To impose now a legal requirement that specific cleanup methods or procedures be used could well `discourage the overall development work needed at this time, and could prohi'bit the early use of new possibly more effective methods and procedures. We sugges't, therefore, that the words in `Section 19(h) "set forth the methods and procedures to be followed in removing oil" be changed. so that the `Secretary is `directed instead to "describe `the `conditions under which oil shall be removed." It would also `be desirable for the Secretary to be asked to "from time to time, issue such research findings, recommendations, and other technical information as may assist in oil removal." Item (3) of Section 19(h) directs the Secretary to issue regulations that "will assist in preventing the pollution of the navigable waters of the United States." This language is so vague as to provide no guidance as to what type of regulation is contemplated. It could well be broadly construed to go beyond the purposes of Section 19 to permit `the `Secretary to regulate equipment `design or operation. In the area of ship design and equipment, now regulated by another federal agency, it `could produce jurisdictional conflicts. We believe that, where possible, regula'tory agencies should be concerned with performance, leaving the means of achieving satisfactory performance to the ingenui'ty of the regulated. We recognize that the Secretary must be able to issue such regulations as `will assis't in carrying out `the purposes of the act. In our view, however, Items (1) and (2) of Section 19(h), `as we recommend they be amended, would give him sufficient powers. In closing, I should like to thank the Committee once again for the opportunity to appear here today. On behalf of both Mr. Checket and myself, I would like to express the hope tha't our testimony will prove helpful to you in drafting legis- lation that is truly responsive to the problem. We shall be happy to answ-er any questions you m'ay have. Mr. BLATNIK. Now you briefly call our attention to the areas that are of particular importance and of concern to you. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PROGRESS TINDER THE WATER QUALITY ACT Already, as a result of the sense of urgency generated by all this standard-setting activity-and I am talking about the State standard- setting activity of the last several years-one can see signs of real prog- ress. Within my own industry, for example, almost every weekly trade paper carries a story of plans for some major improvement in an oil facility's waste water treatment system. For these reasons I am confident that the Water Quality Act of 1965, if given a fair trial, will prove effective in achieving a high degree of water quality control. I might add, under that act we can look forward to orderly progress in reducing any type of pollution, including oil pollution, that may result from inadequate or improper waste disposal practices. PAGENO="0384" 376 FEDERAL CONTROL OF OIL RELEASES FROM SI-lORE FACILITIES This brings me to what we in the petroleum industry believe to be one of the most important questions raised by S. 2760. This is the question of whether additional Federal legislation is needed or actually can bring about a better control of accidental oil releases, or releases of any other common pollutant, from shore facilities. Federal regulation of vessels within our territorial waters is clearly desirable because the vessels move from place to place. Regulation of mobile sources of pollution by multiple jurisdictions is just not prac- tical. In the air pollution control field, we have the example of the automobile, whose pollutants are controlled on a national basis and not a State by State basis. Turning now to page 4, we point to several declarations of policy in the Water Control Act, which I think are quite important: It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controffing water pollution. The declaration goes on to say: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States. In general enforcement section of the act: Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waers shall be encouraged and shall not . . . be displaced by Federal enforcement action. At this point I would like to add the statement that I completely agree with Mr. Oeming's statement yesterday, which, as I got the message, was that Michigan was able, willing, and wanted to take care of pollution from shore installations in their State. As we see it, the net effect of including shore installations in S. 2760 would be to render the policy declaration of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act meaningless and to open the door to direct Federal regulation of not only oil as a pollutant, but of every water pollutant from every possible source along every waterway in the Nation. NEED NOT SHOWN As we see it, such figures by themselves do not build a plausible case for Federal regulation of shore facilities. The figures show that there are huge amounts of oil being handled every year. Yet to find just three significant shore mishaps to cite-one of which did not even involve oil-the Departments had to search the records back to 1962. And I am referring to the report to the President by the De- partments of Interior and Transportation. Even the largest shore spill cited was only one one-thousandth of 1 percent of all the oil handled in the United States that year, and that was a spill of some 40,000-odd barrels. Federal occupation of any field ought to be based on demonstrated needs, not merely on possibilities, and there ought to be some evidence of State failure or inability to do what is required. In our opinion, it would be a mistake to abandon or bypass the PAGENO="0385" 377 orderly procedures established in the 1965 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, before they have even been given a trial. So far the Secretary of the Interior has approved-in many cases conditionally-water quality standards covermg all common water pollutants, including oil, for a majority of the States. Hopefully, the other States will soon also receive approval of their proposals. We know of no case where any State's standards have been held up or refused because of imperfections in proposals for deaimg with pollution by oil. Clearly, if the Secretary of the Interior has reason to believe any State has not made adequate provision for dealing with oil pollution, he has the authority, under present law, to withhold approval of the State's standards and implementation plans or, if necessary, tb set and enforce standards of his own. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CONTROL OF SHORE INSTALLATIONS As a practical matter, the Federal Government would probably find it difficult to exercise effective control over all shore installations. It must be remembered that 5. 2760 would apply to countless thousands of shore installations, both little and big, most of which have no connection with the oil industry. Included would be factories and utilities that use oil for fuel, lubrication, or cooling. Many less obvious onshore sources, which S. 2760 would not cover, can and do contribute to accidental oil pollution. For example, hun- dreds of gallons of fuel oil recently showed up in a major east coast harbor. Investigation by the port authority revealed that the oil had leaked from a fuel storage tank in the basement of the school in the city into a sewer and eventually into the harbor. It is difficult to see how the Federal Government could deal more effectively with such problems than the States. There would be tremendous duplication of personnel if they did try to cover it. The States would still have to control their intrastate waters. In short, we think that direct Federal regulation of shore installa- tions would establish a precedent that is inconsistent with the spirit of the Water Pollution Control Act. It is not justified on the basis of need; it holds little promise of providing better solutions than State and local control, and it could actually discourage present sincere ef- forts to solve the problem on a local basis. COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS AT MAJOR HARBORS Now, I think the committee would be interested in hearing about the cooperative efforts of petroleum companies and others to provide swift action to contain and remove spilled oil at major harbors and along major waterways where petroleum cargo vessels traffic creates a potential for such spills. Briefly, these efforts follow this general pattern: The oil companies and other industries with terminal facilities on the harbor meet with representatives of interested government agen- cies, such as the local port authority, the fire department, the State police, the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, and, in a few in- stances, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 94-376-GS--------25 PAGENO="0386" 378 Usually, a harbor pollution abatement committee is formed-with both industry and government members-to assess local needs and devise a procedural plan. The oil companies and other industries underwrite the cost of most-and in some cases all-of the emergency equipment purchased, such as floating booms, skimming devices, or pumping equipment. . Lines of communication are set up, and the duties and responsibili- ties of each of the government agencies and industries are defined. Usually, the local port authority or fire department assumes respon- sibility for storage and deployment of equipment and the oil coin- panies agree to remove the oil once it has been contamed. There were only a handful of these cooperative programs just a year ago, but right now more than 25 programs are either in effect or being organized. Eventually we would hope to have an active program at every major harbor in the Nation, but there is one serious stumbling block-and one that the Congress could help to remove. "GOOD SAMARITAN" PROVISION Although our enthusiasm to get more of these programs underway is very strong, a question has been raised concerning the possibility of liability to third parties for accidents during a cooperative cleanup operation. Because of this question, some companies have been reluc- tant to agree to lend manpower assistance in cleaning up a spill for which somebody else's vessel is responsible. One way to resolve this problem would be to incorporate an appro- priate "Good Samaritan" clause in the legislation now before the committee. Under such a clause, any person who voluntarily assisted a vessel owner or operator in cleaning up spilled oil would be relieved of liability for civil damages except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct. If such a provision is adopted, I am confident the response of the petroleum industry will be both positive and prompt. OTHER PROVISIONS OF 5. 2760 I would now like to comment oii several provisions of 5. 2760. We support the criminal provision of 5. 2760, section 19(c), as applied to vessels. There is, however, one foreseeable problem in its application, as well as in the application of the civil penalty provision, section 19(d). Both provisions prescribe penalties for discharges of oil, but, as "oil" and "discharge" are defined, severe Federal penalties could be exacted even for a very minor, harmless discharge. Clearly this does not reflect the true intent of the bill. Therefore, we urge that the defini- tion of "oil" in section 19(a) be modified slightly to read: Oil means substantial floating oil of any kind or in any form including but not limited to fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with other matter. The modification is adding the words "substantial floating." On the next page, in section 19(c), the criminal provision would apply only to the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation, or to their employees. But it is conceivable that others, such as vandals or saboteurs might also be guilty of a willful act. Thus we urge that the PAGENO="0387" 379 words "or any other `person" be added to this subsection and, of course, that the reference to shore installations be deleted. Because actual physical removal is often impractical, a literal inter- pretation of the term "removal" would be unreasonable in many cases. Therefore, we urge that a definition of the term be included in the bill, and we suggest the following language: "`Remove' or `removal' means the taking of all appropriate and reasonable measures to mitigate potential damage of oil discharged into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines." Turning now to section 19(h), which describes the regulatory re- sponsibility of the Secretary of the Interior, as written, item (1) of this subsection requires the Secretary to prescribe the methods to be followed in removing oil from water and shorelines. To anyone who has read the accounts of attempts to ameliorate the effects of the Torrey Canyon and Ocean Eagle disasters-or the recent report to the President by the Departments of Interior and Trans- portation-it should be quite clear that no one yet is in a position to do what this provision asks of the Secretary. Oil spill removal is a field in which there are few experts-~where every promising new idea deserves a trial. We suggest, in fact, that the bill should provide funds for Federal participation in the research effort in this area, just as it does for acid mine drainage and eutrophication research. Skipping a little, item (3) of section 19(h) directs the Secretary to issue regulations that "will assist in preventing the pollution of the navigable waters of the United States." This language is so vague as to provide no guidance as to what type of regulation is contemplated. It could well be broadly construed to go beyond the purposes of sec- tion 19 to permit the Secretary to regulate equipment design or opera- tion. In the area of ship design and equi'pment, now regulated by an- other Federal agency, it could produce jurisdictional conflicts. We believe that, where possible, regulatory agencies should be con- cerned with performance, leaving the means of achieving satisfactory performance to the ingenuity of the regulated. We recognize that the Secretary must be able to issue such regulations as will assist in carry- ing out the purposes of the act. In our view, however, items (1) and (2) of section 19(h) as we recommend they be amended, would give him sufficient powers. In closing, I should like to thank the committee once again for the opportunity to apjea.r here today. On behalf of both Mr. Checket and myself, I would like to express the hope that our testimony will prove helpful to you in drafting legislation that is truly responsive to the problem. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you for an obviously very well thought out and precisely presented series of recommendations, which will be given very close attention and evaluation, discussion, both by the staff and members of the committee. And we obviously will require continuing dialogue and discussion with you or representatives on the teclrniea~l and legal aspects. Mr. GAMMELGARD. That we will be pleased to do. Mr. BLATNIK. We are more interested in accomplishing constructive PAGENO="0388" 380 and positive results rather than going on a punitive expedition. We hope that that will somehow produce the desirable results. I think we are going to make a great forward step in a very difficult problem. To oversimplify, no one knows to this day how you adequately remove the oil, no matter how innocently the cause may be, or wher- ever the accident may be. I call this to your attention, I am personally more interested in research work the industry may be doing or different industries wher- ever they may be, jointly or individually, on dispersants, homo- genization ot chemicals, use of chemicals. I know there is substantial progress being made, be.cause I am one who is a strong advocate of encouraging this type of research work, not only by the Federal Government in grants to universities, but also working with and through the industries involved, whether they be ~paper, synthetic fibers, chemicals, fuel, and certainly in your case. 1 think some breakthrough perhaps may be reached. Some indications look very encouraging, very attractive. We will need more information ~on that, which we will appreciate very much. Mr. GAMMELGARD. We will do that. ~Mr. BL~TNIK. Do you have any brief comments, or comments from ~any members with you? I appreciate the members standing by. Mr. Wright~ COVERAGE OF SHORE INSTALLATIONS Mr. WRIGHT. Very briefly, the central thrust of this testimony di- rects itself to the shore installations in the first place, and Congress decided in the 1966 act this should not be included in the community provision of the act. There are thousands of rivers related and un- related to the oil industry. Your position and those with you are already thoroughly covered under the existing law in regard to the States and the applied standards. Mr. GAMMELGARD. I haven't seen a single one of the 25-or-so-odd State laws that have come to my attention that do not give a pretty strict definition of what is permitted in the way of an oil discharge. Mr. Oeming's statement yesterday defined it as "no visible film of oil, gasoline or related materials, no globul'es of grease." This is typical of other States' requirements and to meet this is going to take some real control facilities on shore installations; but we are going to do it. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, really, there is more sense in taking oil dis- charges and putting them under an ei~tirely different administration than in, like the pickling liquors coming from pickle factories or acids coming from steel mills or from some other operations, or chemical's coming from chemical plants, any of the other pollutant's. I am sure you cannot obviously do that with States, where vessels are moving around and some vessels are obviously doing that. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Exactly the way we feel. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Pittman, do you have a separate statement? Mr. PITTMAN. No, sir; I do not. Mr. BLATNIK. You join the `chairman in his presentation? Mr. PITrMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer? PAGENO="0389" 381 REQUIREMENT TO AMELIORATE THE EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE Mr. CRAMER. What does "ameliorate" in your statement mean to you? Mr. GAMMELGARD. To reduce the effects of; you take whatever steps you can to lessen or reduce. Mr. CRAMER. The owner-operator of a vessel is gomg to have the duty to "ameliorate," is that right? Mr. GAMMELGARD. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. The owner has to do it pursuant to the instructions and directi'ons of the Secretary, but I would not know what that meant, and to what extent it had to be ameliorated. You cannot replace the sand on the beaches? Mr. G-AMMELGARD. That has been done, sir. Mr. CRAMER. There are limits as to what can or should be done. Do you not think that ameliorate is a bad word? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Well, there might be a better word. To me it just means to do whatever you can to bring the effects down to the lowest reasonable level. Mr. CRAMER. Now, on page 8 again, if such owner or operator fails to so act, the Secretary may "ameliorate" the effects. Does that mean lie pays the damages to the businesses that have been affected, the hotels that have had cancellations, restaurants that have not done any business, beach establishments, cabanas, et cetera? Mr. GAMMELGARD. It could go that far, I presume. Mr. CRAMER. If these regulations say so, he can look at these, and "ameliorate the effect." His regulations could be broad enough to cover any effect under this wording. Mr. GAMMELGARD. It is practically without limit as it is proposed, and the tab, whatever it is going to be, would just be passed on. Mr. CHECKET. I think, Mr. Congressman, there is some problem in the language as written perhaps applicable to that section that giving broad powers can produce regulations that are in conflict with other regulations that are already in effect, and ameliorating it could be something that is in conflict with a regulation the Coast Guard already has in effect as far as the ship is concerned. Mr. CRAMER. In the language of the present bill the Secretary may remove the oil and may arrange for its removal and charge a ship to "ameliorate its effect." There must be a reason for it. Mr. CHECKET. I really don't know. Mr. CRAMER. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. We thank you gentlemen, very much. Mr. Casey, did you have a separate statement to read? Mr. CASEY. I have a long statement, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have it inserted at this point, and just to hit the highlights. Mr. BLATNIK. The statement will appear in its entirety at this point in the record. (Prepared statement of Ralph E. Casey follows:) STATEMENT OF RALPH E. CASEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE My name is Ralph E. Casey, President of the American Merchant Marine Institute. Our organization comprises some 32 companies which own and operate a major part of the U.S-flag oceangoing cargo vessels, tankers, passenger ships, PAGENO="0390" 382 and bulk carriers engaged in the domestic and foreign trades of the U.S. As such, Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to testify before this Corn- inittee on this highly important bill, HR. 14000 (S. 2760), which deals with the vexing problem of pollution of the seas. I would like to state at the outset that we in shipping have traditionally ac- corded great concern to all endeavors designed to prevent contamination of the seas by oil or other noxious materials. My direct testimony will be concerned primarily with those provisions of HR. 14000 (S. 2760) relating to oil pollution. I might say that my testimony will be of a non-technical nature. Other industry witnesses will be able to comment on the more technical aspects of the problem as it relates to shipping. First, I would like to comment briefly on the genesis: of the legislation dealing with this problem and how it has changed drastically in its progression through the legislative process. Originally, Mr. Chairman, we were invited to testify on proposals which were being heard by the Subcommittee on Oil and Water Pollution of time Senate Committee on Public Works. These bills were 5. 1586, introduced by Senator Magnason; 5. 1501, introduced by Senator Muskie; and S. 1604, intro- duced by Senator Case. The purpose of these bills was to amend Section 2 clause 3 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1024 (33 USC 431, et seq.), by eliminating the word "grossly" from the definition of "discharge" and adding the w-oril "accidental". At that time it was our position that we did not object to the removal of the word "grossly" from clause 3 Se:c. 2 of `the Oil Pollution Act of 1024 since we could appreciate the enforcement problems involved. We did, however, object to sub- stitution of the word "acciden:tal" in its place. I would like to point out, i\ir. Chairman, that the Committee completely re- wrote these bills and transformed the legislation into a much different and radi- cally more drastic proposal. The new bill, S. 2760, which contains provisions upon which we were never afforded an opportunity to express views, was re- ported out by the Senate Public Works Committee on December 11, 1067, and passed by the Senate on December 12 without the benefit of debate, exchange of ideas, or floor consideration. This Senate-passed bill is before us at the present time in the form of HR. 14000 and is the subject of our concern and deliberation. PROVISIONS OF S. 2700 RELATING TO CONTROL OF OIL POLLUTION In this connection, it would seem appropriate to list the accumulated changes and additions which constitute the greatly expanded Senate-passed bill. Thus, S. 2760 provide's: 1. The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is repealed and the appropriate provisions regarding oil pollution become Section 19 of the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act. 2. The phrase "grossly negligent" and the word "willful" are eliminated from the definition of "discharge" as found in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924. "Dis- charge" is now defined as "any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of oil". 3. This bill adds a definition of the term "public vessel". The purpose of this definition is to make it clear that the prohibitions of the new section apply `to these public vessels but not the penalties. 4. The definition of a "vessel" would include all vessels, both foreign and domestic. `5. Extends coverage of the Act to shore installations. 6. A "public shore installation" is defined as a shore installation operated by the Ilnited States. or by a State. 7. The definition of the term "United States" has been expanded so that cover- age of the new section applies to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. S. Two definitions in `the 1924 Act have been revised. The first is the definition of "person". The definition in the 1924 Act seemed to create an ambiguity by making a distinction between the owner, operator, master, agent, or employee of a vessel and an individual company, corporation, or association. The report ac- companying the bill [No. 917] states that there should not he such a distinction as the latter group is, in fact, the owner, etc., of the vesseL The bill uses the more descriptive term "owner or operator" which includes individuals or organi- zations such as a corporation, etc., that owns, operates, or charters by demise a vessel, or owns or operates a shore installation. PAGENO="0391" 383 The second revision is in the definition of the word "oil". The changes in this definition were necessitated by the addition of "shore installation". The re- vision makes it clear that the bill would cover discharge wastes that include oil, or oily mixtures. 9. Sec. 19(e) provides that the owner or operator involved in a discharge shall remove the discharged oil immediately. If the owner or operator fails to do so, the Secretary may arrange for its removal and such owner or operator will be liable for the full actual costs of cleanup. The cost of removal is in addition to any penalties prescribed in Sec. 19. The only exception to this cleanup liability is where the spill was due to "an act of God". 10. Authorizes appropriations to a revolving fund to enable the Secretary to finance cleanup measures. 11. Under subsection (g) the Commandant of the Coast Guard may suspend or revoke licenses issued to the master or any other officer of the vessel found violating provisions of Sec. 19(b). 12. Subsection (h) provides for the issuance of regulations by the Secretary of the Interior which (1) set out method and procedure for removing oil from the navigable waters, (2) facilitate enforcement of the section, and (3) will assist in preventing pollution of the navigable waters. He may also issue regula- tions which authorize the discharge of oil under certain circumstances. Turning now to the bill itself, section 19(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by H.R. 14000, contains a number of definitions of terms employed in the statute. PROHIBITION AND PENALTY PROVISIONS UNCLEAR Subsection 19(b) w-ould make it unlawful to discharge or permit the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shore- lines of the United States except (1) in case of emergency imperiling life or property, (2) unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, or (3) as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Since the bill uses the terms "unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding", the logical presumption is that some degree of fault would have to be shown for a violation to be proved. Yet, in Senate Report No. 917, accompanying S. 2760. there appears the following explanation of the language of section 19(b): "The bill would make it unlawful for anyone to idscharge oil into the waters covered b ythe bill or upon the adjoining shorelines of the United States and Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, regardless of fa?tlt. The amended 1924 act now prohibits only grossly negligent and willful dis- charges of oil. The bill, like the 1924 act, recognizes that there are exceptions to this general prohibition which should be recognized in applying a criminal statute. These are cases of emergency where life or property are involved, other than the property of the vessel or shore installation, or cases of unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding. Thus, the test under the bill is whether the vessel or shore installation discharged the oil and, if it did, whether the dis- charge was excusable under one of `these exceptions. If the discharge did not come under one of the exceptions, then the discharge is unlawful." (Emphasis supplied.) The best that can be said for section 19(b) as it now reads is that its meaning is not clear. It could be construed as rendering any spilling of oil "unlawful" unless the owner or operator can establish that the spill was due to "an emergency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary * * ~." In other words, the burden of proof would shift to the owner or operator to prove he was not in violation. Subsection (c) would make it a crime, subject to `the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, or both, whenever the provisions of such subsection (b) are willfully violated. And subsection (d) would impose a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for violations of subsection (b). Said subsection (d) also would authorize denial of clearance of a vessel liable for `the civil penally until the penalty is paid or its payment guaranteed. Furthermore, an unpaid penalty would constitute a lien on the vessel. Thus, both the criminal provisions of sub- section 19(c) and the civil penalty provisions of subsection 19(d) are tied to the language of subsection 19(b). Of course, subsection 19(c) does contain the word "wilfully" and the Senate Report says, "The bill and the 1924 act would require that this penalty only PAGENO="0392" 384 apply where the court finds that the discharger willfully violated the prohibi- tion against discharging oil and such discharge did not fall into one of the exceptions mentioned above." Again, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat mystified as to how you can "willfully" violate a provision of law that purports to impose liability "regardless of fault". All those ambiguities should be resolved or endless litigation will inevitably result. And I respectfully suggest that subsection 10(b) should be amended so that negligence would have to be proven to establish a violation. Indeed, were it not for the language of the Report quoted above, I am firmly of the belief that an unlawful spilling under 19(b) would be one resulting from an aivoidable accident or, in other words, happening which but for the lack of reasonable care would not have occurred. CLEANUP PROVISIONS However, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of subsection (e), with respect to cleanup, are of the utmost concern to the shipping industry. They read: "(e) The owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation from which oil is discharged into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines shall remove such discharged oil immediately from such waters and shorelines in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section. If such owner or operator fails to so act, the Secretary may remove the oil or arrange for its removal from such waters and shorelines, and such owner or operator and, as appropriate, the vessel and the shore installation shall be liable, notwithstanding an~j other provision of law, to the United States, in addition to any penalties prescribed in this section, for the full amount of the actual costs incurred by the Secretary under this subsection: Provided, That there shall be no such liability where such discharge was due to an act of God. Clearance of a vessel liable for such costs from a port of the United States may be withheld until such costs are paid or until a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. Such costs shall constitute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered by action in rem in the district court of the United States for any district within which such vessel may be found." (Emphasis supplied.) Basically, subsection (e) does two things: (1) It imposes upon the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation from which oil is discharged into the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines an obliga- tion to remove the discharged oil immediately. And if the owner or operator fails to do so, the Secretary of the Interior may remove the oil, in which case the vessel or the shore installation shall be liable for the full amount of the actual cost of cleanup; and (2) All existing legal limitations upon shipowners' liabilities would be removed in the case of cleanup obligation. LIABILITY WITHOUT FA1JIT To put it mildly, Mr. Chairman, this is a far-reaching proposal, which could have devastating effects both nationally and internationally. You will note that the only exemption from liability is where the discharge is due to an act of God. Thus, liability is imposed where the owner is absolutely without fault in a myriad of situations. For example, a small tanker owner, whose vessel was proceeding in broad daylight, could find himself bankrupt under this section should his vessel be rammed by another vessel. Or, a vessel could run aground due to negligence on the part of the United States Government in misplacing a buoy or other aids to navigation. It would seem to us-as serious as the prob- lem is-this kind of legislation is not only unwarranted but grossly unjust. Of course, we recognize that innocent victims want protection from oil spills regardless of how they are caused. And we subscribe wholeheartedly to that. But at the same time the answer is not to protect one innocent party by making another innocent party pay. NO LIMITATION OF LIABILITY As far-reaching as are the provisions of subsection (e) in the imposition of liability without fault, the key language-and that which troubles us most- is the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law." This language, Mr. Chairman, would remove the traditional conception of permitting shipowners to limit their liability, at least with respect to oil spills, and has caused great PAGENO="0393" 385 alarm, both in this country and abroad. Speaking personally, I have rarely if ever seen a piece of legislation involving shipping matters which has been so universally criticized from the standpoint of its inevitable effects. This area of limitation of liability is a highly complicated subject, and in view of the serious implications of the present bill, it would seem desirable and necessary to outline for the Committee the history and background of the problem. The basic United States law, in general, permits a shipowner to limit his liability, but only if the damage is incurred without his privity and knowledge, to the value of the ship after the casualty, plus pending voyage earnings. This was enacted in 1851 (46 USC § 183, 184, 185, 187, and 189) in a form which closely paralleled the British law of that time, and it has remained substantially unchanged except for certain amendments in 1936. In this connection, I would like to point out that it is now frequently said-in error, I might add-that recovery is limited to the salvage value of the ship. And, indeed, in the President's Message of March 8, 1968, it is stated that "Prior law limited the owner's liability to the salvage value of the ship." And this statement again appears in the Department of Transportation-Interior Report to the President on Oil Pollution. I repeat, this is not an accurate statement of the law. As a result of the Morro-Castle disaster, the so-called Sirovich Amendment (46 USC § 183(b)) was enacted, which requires an owner of an oceangoing vessel to provide in addition to the value of the ship and the pending freight a minimum limitation fund of $60 per ton of the vessel's gross tonnage which would be avail- able to personal injury and death claimants. Thus, it is not correct to say that the ow-ner's liability is limited to the salvage value of the ship. There is also $60 per gross ton provided for death and injury claims as well as the value of the ship and the freight receipts for the final voyage. We have consistently advocated liberalization of the fund. The shipowners have agreed that the $60 figure should be raised and the fund increased. This general sentiment in the maritime community resulted in the International Con- vention Relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships, which was negotiated at Brussels in 1957, and has been signed by 30 major mari- time nations. The U.S. Delegation did not sign the Convention because of sig- nificant language differences between the Convention and that sought by our delegation. Also, the Brussels Convention has not come into effect because it has not been ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention established a maximum liability based on vessel tonnage. The limitation fund is computed at $207 per ton where only personal injury and death claims are involved, and at $67 per ton where there are only property claims. Where there are both personal and property claims, the fund is based on the figure of $207 per ton, with $140 per ton to be exclusively reserved for personal injury claims. If the $140 per ton is insufficient to cover the personal injury claims, the unpaid balance is shared pro rata with the $67 per ton which would otherwise be applied exclusively to property claims. In 1902, legislation was introduced in Congress which would have provided the same tonnage limitations as the Brussels Convention and which would have enabled the United States to ratify the Brussels Convention. Recognizing the inadequacies of the present limitation of liability, the industry supported this legislation. Although the 1902 bill was favorably reported out of committee, no action was taken on the floor of the Senate. There is reason to believe that a new limitation of liability bill identical to the 1962 proposal may soon be introduced on the Senate side. That, Mr. Chairman, is limitation of liability as it stands today. Subsection (e), under the language referred to, apparently would remove all limitation on liability for the cleanup of an oil spill. Our objections to the provision of subsection (e) prescribing the removal of limitation of liability with respect to the cleanu,p of an oil spill are as follows: 1. The change as now proposed relating to cleanup would be a drastic step not in harmony with maritime history. 2. The law pertaining to limitation of shipowners' liability is of international significance. Action by the United States, as here proposed, should be undertaken only in concert with other maritime nations throughout the world. 3. So far as is known, no maritime country is wthout some legal system per- mitting limitation in relation to persons andproperty. PAGENO="0394" 386 4. The removal of limitation would play havoc with the current insurance market. In fact, discussions with underwriters indicate that owners will be un- able to secure insurance against such risks without some limitation of liability. 5. If limitation of liability is removed, the American owners will be lilt first and the hardest. American-flag tankers are employed almost exclusively in the coastwise trade between Texas and the North Atlantic and would, therefore, be in waters adjacent to the shores of the United States a much greater percentage of the time than foreign ships. 6. The most conclusive objection is that an o~perator subject to absolute lia- bility without fault could be driven from the seas. The small operator (one, two or three tankers) could not financially survive the impossible burden of totaZ cleanup costs for even one disaster. Mr. Chairman, over a century ago, limitation of liability was adopted as a na- tional maritime policy by both Great Britain and the United States to limit catastrophic losses from the perils of the sea. Both the British and American merchant marines were failing fast, for there were investments in other areas just as lucrative and much less risky. Consequently, it was found necessary, in the interest of attracting capital `to the owning and operating of ships, to protect against the extraordinary perils of the sea. Today, the situation facing the American merchant marine is as bad or worse than it was a hundred years ago. Three-quarters of our fleet is over 20 years of age. No adequate replacement program is yet on the horizon. Unless radical measures are taken fast, there is a good prospect that the present fleet of approx- imately 975 vessels will shrink to four or five hundred vessels in the years im- mediately ahead. Action by the Congress to remove all limitation of liability upon any risk, including oil spillage, would be the last "nail in the coffin". Thus, we strongly urge retaining some form of limitation. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES I have already alerted some of the labor unions representing ships' officers to the dangers inherent in the provisions of subsection 19(g). Under this section, the Commandant of the Coast Guard may suspend or revoke a license issued to an officer of any vessel found violating the provisions of subsection 19(b). Sen- ate Report No. 917 offers the following explanation of this provision: "The 1924 act authorizes the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke a master's li- cense or the license of any officer of a vessel found violating the act. The bill would continue this authority." The above explanation naively forgets that in order to establish a violation un- der the 1924 act, either gross negligence or willfulness had to be established. Under the present bill, a violation could ap~oarently occur "regardless of fault". I hope the Committee will appreciate the seriousness of the predicament in which our merchant officers will be placed should the bill pass in its present form. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS And finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer a brief comment with respect to subsection 19(h). In that section the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue regulations which, among other things, would permit the discharge of oil from a vessel under certain circumstances. It has recently been brought to my attention that situations do develop, particularly where a vessel is tempo- rarily stranded, when it becomes advisable, in the opinion of the experts. to deliberately pump oil from the vessel into the sea. The theory is, I believe, that by lightening the vessel it may be freed and thus eliminate the danger of vastly greater damage in the event it should break up. I merely wish to mention this kind of situation at this time, although I am sure that the Secretary would cover such situations in the regulations he is au- thorized to issue under subsection 19(h). INTERNATIONAL APPROACH Mr. Chairman, I cannot say too strongly that this entire matter of oil pollution is one which properly should be dealt with in an international basis. You will recall that at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster great pressures built up in both England and France for the enactment of unilateral oil pollution legislation. PAGENO="0395" 387 However, eventually the Government of the United Kingdom, supported by the United States and other maritime nations, called for an emergency meeting of the Council of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. This is a specialized agency of the United Nations, organized to provide for coopera- tion among governments in many areas of shipping activity, and includes all major shipping nations of the world. Recognizing that a Torrey Canyon casualty could occur off the shores of `this country, interest in the United States was of course `high, both as to corrective measures at a national level and as to international cooperation toward the same end. In that connection, the Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fish- eries Committee issued a statement strongly supporting an international ap- proach to the problem. The Council of IMCO met in Extraordinary Session in May, 1967, and insti- tuted a series of studies of the problem brought into focus by the Torrey Canyon accident. The measures to be considered were in three categories: (a) those to prevent future accidents, (b) those to minimize damage if accidents should oc- cur, and (c) legal questions. It was agreed that top priority should be given to those items which dealt with the type of problem presented by the Torrey Canyon accident but that final results of the studies should include other proposals of general application to maritime safety. A mere recitation of the subjects which IMCO agreed to study indicates the breadth and depth of the inquiry which is underway: a. Minimizing incidents by: (1) Preventive measures on sea lanes and prohibited areas (2) Additional navigational aids (3) Shore guidance for movement of ships (4) Speed restrictions (5) Testing of navigational equipment (6) Training and qualification for officers and crew (7) Use of automatic pilots (8) Design, construction and equipment of ships (9) Identification and charting of hazards (10) Organization of watches b. National and international procedures in the event of accident. c. Oil pollution research relative to prevention in the event of accident. d. Legal matters: (1) Investigation of casualties (2) Reexamination of the 1954 International Convention (3) Jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas (4) Liability and compensation (5) Free movement of salvage equipment. In connection with the work of IMCO in this field of pollution of the seas, other international agencies are also involved. For example, the International Chamber of Shipping, which is an organization composed of shipping associations from all the principal maritime nations of the world, is very much involved in the work on the technical issues. At its Annual Meeting held a few weeks ago in London, the matter of the various legislative proposals now pending in the United States Congress was the subject of great concern. Following the Meeting, ICS agreed upon the following statement for public release: "In the past year the far-reaching implications of the Torrey Canyon incident which have been remitted to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Or- ganization have been under active consideration by the International Chamber of Shipping. The LC.S. ha's been coordinating views on the various studies and recommendations within the legal, technical and navigational fields and has put its practical advise at the disposal of IMCO. The I.C.S. is particularly anxious that, while IMCO and the Ooinite Maritime International are endeavouring to find legal solutions to the problem of oil discharged into the sea, governments should resist the temptation to introduce their own legislation to lay down pro- cedures and deal with liability for damage. Unilateral legislation by any one government on matters of international concern can only cause serious interrup- tion of existing international shipping practices in the maintenance of which all countries have a vital interest." In effect they are saying to us in thiscountry: PAGENO="0396" 388 `When we had a problem over here resulting from the Torrey Canyon, you urged us not to treat the issues on a unilateral basis but to deal with them inter- nationally. And we did so. Now we are making the same request of the United States." I wish to assure this Committee that a great deal of progress has been made by the various Committees and Subcommittees of IMCO in resolving many as- pects of oil pollution. Some of these areas are: 1. The establishment of sea lanes incorporating traffic separation was con- sidered worthy of recommendation as a potential contribution toward greater safety. Routing and traffic separation schemes have been recommended for 10 specific areas, and 2 additional areas have been designated as ones to be avoided by tankers carrying oil. 2. Port advisory services are felt to have value, and their establishment is recommended for appropriate ports-particularly those handling noxious or hazardous cargoes or at oil terminals. 3. The extension of pilotage services was also recommended. 4. The value of ship-borne aids to navigation was matter of general recogni- tion, and a Subcommittee urged that the carriage of radar be made compulsory on all voyages for seagoing ships of 1600 g.r.t. and over, and recommended that suitable electronic position-fixing equipment be fitted in tankers and other ships carrying noxious or hazardous cargoes in bulk. 5. There is a proposed new international regulation to the effect that when the automatic pilot is used in congested areas or in restricted visibility, or under any other conditions in which navigation is hazardous, there should always be the possibility of instantaneous establishment of human control of the ship's movements. 6. All ships should carry adequate and up-to-date charts and other publications necessary for the intended voyage. These matters will come before an Extraordinary Session of the IMCO As- sembly in November, 1968. This Assembly Meeting will be devoted exclusively to the results of the Torrey Canyon program of w-ork. On matters primarily of public law, consideration is being given to (a) the problem of determining when a coastal State might be justified in taking action to forestall pollution or other damage, (b) the machinery for investigating the aftermath of casualties and the practical aspects of conducting salvage opera- tions, (c) legal issues involving the protection of innocent victims and com- pensation for damages suffered by them, (d) whether officials of a contracting State should be entitled to verify contraventions of the Convention provisions, stop any ship caught in the act of such intervention, and board her, (e) whether a contracting State should take into consideration a report drawn up by an authorizing official of another contracting State and institute proceedings on the basis of such report, (f) whether contracting States should cooperate in facili- tating judicial and other proceedings on the basis of the report drawn up by an authorizing official, (g) whether an international tribunal should be set up which would be empowered to impose penalties when any State has been found to con- travene the Convention provisions. The International Maritime Law Committee, known as "Comite Maritime In- ternational" (CMI), is scheduled to meet in Brussels May 2-3, 1968. One of the problems to be dealt with at the forthcoming meeting involves the principle of limitation Øf liability. On this, there is unanimous agreement that the principle should be maintained in regard to liability for oil pollution damage. An excerpt from an interim report of CMI indicates that the main reason for retaining this principle is ~~thaIt insurance of the shipowner's liability risk is grcttly facilitated when the maximum liability can normally be assessed in advance, and it is in the interest of the victims that adequate insurance facilities are easily available." Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, this brief summary indicates a dedication on the part of all maritime countries of the world to come to grips without undue delay with the myriad of problems that have been brought into focus by the stranding of the TORREY CANYON. Under these circumstances, it is our urgent plea that final action on the pending legislation be deferred at least for this session of the Congress so that the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization will have adequate opportunity to provide international solutions to which the United States can subscribe. Thank you. PAGENO="0397" 389 LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, I sithscri'be wholeheartedly to the posi- tion that the American Petroleum Institute has taken in two principal and importnnt areas. First, that if this bill purports to impose lia'biliy without fault, that it is unfair and contrary to est.ablished legal prec- edents. We feel that the bill should provide for unlawful discharges only in the case of negligence. Indeed, a reading of the bill, were it not for the statement in the report of the Senate committee, would lead me to the belief that an unlawful spilling under 19(b) would be one resulting from an `avoid- able accident since the section uses the word "unavoidable" or, in other words, a happening which, but for the lack of reasonable care, would not have occurred. I note yesterday that the Secretary of the Interior said, in effect, let the fellow who made the mistake clean it up rather than the Federal Government. We subscribe to that, but a mistake in itself connotes negligence in the act of passive action. NO LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Aside from the question of liability without fault, the most signifi- cant change that is made in the cleanup section derives from the use of the words "notwithstanding any other provision of law which pur- ports to remove the historic limitation of liability enjoyed by ship- owners for generation's," because over a century ago limitation of liabil- ity was adopted as a nationai maritime policy by both Great Britain and the United States. To limit catastrophic losses from the perils of the sea, both countries adopted it. Both the British and American merch'a:nt marine was failing fast, but there were investments in other areas and much less risky Consequently, it was found necessary, in the interest `of attracting capital to the owning and operating of vessels to protect against extraordinary perils of the sea. Today, the situation facing the American merchant marine is worse than it was 100 years ago. To remove all limitation of liability for any risk, including oil spillage, would be the last nail in the coffin of the American merchant marine today. Thus, we strongly urge retaining some form of limitation. INTI~RNATIONAL APPROACH Now, Mr. Ohairman, I am going to skip, in the interest of time, to point out merely that we feel that this entire question is derived from the consequences of the Torrey Canyon and, indeed, the Ocean Eagle are matters that can be handled on an international basis under the intergovermnental maritime consulting organizations. This organization has established numerous committees, both in the' legal and practical aspects of what can be done to avoid similar acci- dents, what ~an be done when an accident happens. There is a forthcoming meeting of the legal group called the' Comite Maritime International, on May 2 `and 3, where there will be a number of suggestions put forth before that group on an interna- PAGENO="0398" 390 tional basis and, indeed, one of them is one that we mentioned a short time ago, in Mr. Cramer's question where it would shift the burden of proof from the Government or the Secretary of Interior to establish fault to the shipowners. He would be presumed to be negli- gent unless he could establish he was without fault. This, as I say, will be considered on an international basis. When the Torrey Canyon accident happened, I might say the United States urged that either Britain or France enact unilateral legislation at that time in an area of despair, so to speak, over the consequences of the Torrey Canyon accident. The Chair is in receipt of a cable from the International Chamber of Shipping, composed of the national shipping organizations of 21 maritime countries, asking that this committee defer final action until this matter can be handled on an international basis. In effect, what they are saying to us is when the Torrey Canyon ac- cident happened over here you pleaded with us to handle this on an international basis, and now we are making the same request of you. I assure you that great progress has been made in a number of the areas that are involved. There were some 18 principal subjects that they felt should be considered as a result of the Torrey Canyon acci- dent, and these have been considered by subcommittees. The American Merchant Marine Institute, the organization that I had, has engaged separate counsel to attend these meetings in London. We have other consultants that are attending on the areas tha.t involve expertise in these fields. In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I say that there is a great effort being made on an international basis to avoid the consequences and, indeed, to handle the spill-over that happens as a result of these extraordinary spills, and we do feel that final action should be deferred on any drastic changes in international law on the part of the United States until the matter can be handled effectively on an international basis. CONCLUSION The rest of my statement gives a lot of background on the limitation of liability. It analyzes the provisions of the bill which Mr. Cramer refers to, which I believe were inconsistent, and I do believe, were it not for that statement in the central report, that the terms of section 1(b), when it uses the term "unavoidable accident," necessarily im- plies that if you could avoid it, that you are not liable; but negligence is necessarily implied, and I believe that is what should be. the crux of 19(b). Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Casey; and thank you for your cooperation in standing by so long, and summarizing your presentation. Mr. CRAMER? Mr. CRAMER. Does not the "ameliorate" disturb you at all? Mr. CASEY. I do not know where it is. The language that I have in S. 2760 is the same language. Mr. BLATNIK. The Senate bill. Mr. CRAMER. That is Mr. Fallon's bill, H.R.. 15906, on lines 15. 17, and 18. It is also on line 2, page 9. Here it is if you want to take a look at it. PAGENO="0399" 391 Mr. CASEY. Well, I know what was meant by this word, to take all reasonable precaution and action immediately to do whatever you could to lessen the damaging effects of the oil spill, including removal, which is the language in the original bill, and the language in S. 2760. I directed my thinking completely around the. S. 2760, and was not aware there was a difference in this respect. Mr. CRAMER. That language does not bother you, then? Mr. CASEY. I do not believe so. Mr. CRAMER. I wish you would take another look at it. Mr. CASEY. I wi.ll be glad to. Mr. CRAMER. It seems to me to ameliorate the effect would have an endless checking of liability. Mr. CASEY. The last thing I want in the world is to have unlimited power in the administrative agency. The liability should be prescribed in the statute. Mr. CRAMER. On the standpoint of what is covered? Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. That is all I have. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. John C. J. Shearer and Peter N. Miller. Are you two gentlemen together? Is this a correlated statement? INSURANCE AGAINST LEGAL LIABILLITY RESULTING FROM OIL POLLUTION STATEMENT OP JOHN C. J. SHEARER, LONDON INSURANCE EXECU- TIVE, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER N. MILLER, LONDON INSURANCE EXECUTIVE Mr. SHEARER. I have a statement to make, and I will be followed by Mr. Miller. Mr. BLATNIK. Will you proceed with your statement, Mr. Shearer? We simultaneously express our appreciation for your being here with us. I am sure this will be very interesting testimony and, at the same time, I apologize for keeping you so long. I understand you are trying to leave, to depart this evening, to go back to London. Please proceed at will. Mr. SHEARER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might say that I intend to address myself only to certain features of section 19(e) of H.R. 14000 and corresponding sections of com- panion bills which, it is submitted, would have a serious, adverse effect on the marine transportation industry and, therefore, on the foreign trade of the United States. PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION WOULD CREATE UNINSURABLE RISKS It seems to me from my vantage point as a specia.list in the field of marine liability insurance that these features to which I have referred would not only be hurtful to the marine transportation industry, but would, in fact, as you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out in addressing Mr. Checket, be self-defeating in that they would create uninsurable risks, and they would result in shipowners not being able to meet t.he obligation to pay the cleanup c'osts referred to in section 19 of H.R. 14000. PAGENO="0400" 392 You have been kind enough, Mr. Chairman, to introduce me. I am a partner in the firm of Thomas R. Miller & Son, the managers of the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurances Association, Ltd., 14/20, St. Mary Axe, London, E.C. 3. England. I have been engaged in the management of that association for 16 years. This statement is made on behalf of all of the mutual Ship- owners' Protection & Indemnity Associations herein designated, and I would like to thank you on behalf of those associations for being given the opportunity to appear before you. ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED AND THEIR FUNCTION The United Kingdom P. & I. Association is the largest of a number of mutual protection and indemnity associations, which are often col- lectively referred to as the London Group of P. & I. Associations. The other associations which comprise the London Group are: The Britannia S.S. insurance Association Ltd.; The London S.S. Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd.; The Newcastle Protection & Indemnity Association. The North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association; The Standard S.S. Owners Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd.; The Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd.; The Sunderland Protecting and Indemnity Association; The West of Eng'and Steam Shipowners Protection & Indemnity Association Ltd. Apart from the London group, I am also authorized to represent the Liverpool and London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Asso- ciation of Liverpool and the Scandinavian P. & I. Associations, namely Assurance Foreign Gard, of Avendal, Arendal, Norway; Assur- ance Foreninger Skuld, with a head office in Oslo, Norway, and Sveriges Angfartys Assurans Forening, of G'othei~burg, Sweden. These associations virtually insure shipowners `of various nationali- ties, owning tonnage approximating 130 million gross registered tons, about two-thirds of the world's tonnage, including over 4 million tons of U.S.-fiag shipping. For example, the United `Kingdom P. & I. Asso- ciation consists of 15 percent British~flag tonnage and 85-percent tonnage of other flags. The `board of directors of `this association is composed of 32 members, of many nationalities. Included are vessels flying the flags of more than 60 maritime nations. I should explain here, alibeit `briefly, the main function of the P. & I. Associations. In each association, shipowners and charterers band to- gether for a common purpose: to share mutually in the payment of claims brought by third parties for which they are legally liable as `a result of their common commercial purpose, the `operation of ships. What, then, are the liabilities `in respect of wMch the associations afford coverage? The more important `are as follows: (a) Linbility for loss of `life and personal injury to passengers and crews; (b) One-quarter of the ship'owner's liability for collision damage, the remaining three-quarters being customarily covered by the hull underwriters, who insure the owner `against loss of, or damage to his vessel; PAGENO="0401" 393 (c) Liability for loss of or damage to cargo; (d) Liability to third parties for property damage; (e) Liability for removal of wreck, et cetera. It should be particularly noted that the Associations cover also any legal liability resulting from oil pollution. LIABILITY IN CASE OF FAULT AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In the usual case, the shipowner is liable only when fault is either proved or is self-evident and therefore admitted, and in all but the ex- ceptional case, the shipowner is entitled to limit the amount of any such liabiiy in respect of these claims. The fact that international maritime law in general contains these two elements, namely, fault as the basis of liability, and the right to limit such liability in the absence of privity, is one of the main consid- erations upon which the assessment of P. & I. premiums is based. As has already been indicated, all the members of a P. & I. asso- ciation included in the London and Scandinavian group share mutually in the payment of claims incurred by one of their fellow menthers. As a group, the associations protect themselves by excess loss reinsurance coverage on the world insurance markets to the maximum amount obtainable; my colleague, Mr. Miller, will explain the details of these arrangements. Should a claim exceed the amount of this reinsurance protection, then it would fall back on the group for payment; but the group covers members of the participating associations against liabili- ties even beyond the reinsurance obtainable, only because of the extreme remoteness of the possibility of such an event, since to exceed the reinsurance protection, the claims would have to exceed the amount to which a shipowner could normally limit the amount of his liability under the existing laws of the world's maritime nations. It is precisely because the law of every maritime country provides for a reasonable figure to which a shipowner can normally limit his liability, and because liability is generally based on the concept of negligence or fault on the part of the shipowner, that the cost `to the shipowner-and ultimately, therefore, to the consumer of the goods carried by the shipowner-of the insurance of his liabilities can `be kept to a reasonable figure, and that the traditional insurers of this liability, the P. & I. associations, can offer unlimited insurance coverage for the exceptionaJ cases where it is needed. It is because section 1~ (e) of IE[.R. 1400 violates these two funda- mental principles of shipowners' liability insurance negligence as the basis of liability and the right to limit any such liability in the absence of the owners' privity-that we earnestly `ask you to reconsider certain aspects of this legislation. UNLIMITED LIABILITY UNINSURABLE If unlimited liability were imposed on the shipowner by such legisla- tion, it would be uninsurance as such. I do not believe that the `directors of th'e P. & I. associations forming the London group would accept such unlimited liability. `They would surely consider that the risk would be too great, and th'at, furthermore, 94-376-68---26 PAGENO="0402" 394 it offended against the principle of mutuality in that all members would be asked to share in an absolute and unlimited risk assumed, in practice oniy by shipowners trading to and from the United States. The group would have to restrict its coverage to an amount for which it could reasonably burden its own resources, supplemented by its reinsurances. This figure overall is perhaps between $10 million and $15 million, with respect to each vessel involved in any single accident. My colleague, Mr. Miller, will give evidence on this point. The position, therefore, would be that shipowners would be unin- sured in respect of liabilities in excess `of, say, $10 million to $15 million. It is possible that the shipowning subsidiary companies of the major oil companies might `be able to assume liability for claims exceeding such a sum; quite frankly, I doubt it. But it is certa.in that the in- dependent shipowning companies could not do this, and consequently, they would be unable to trade to and from the United States, unless the.y were prepared to do so `partially uninsured. I would like to point out that at the present time the P. & I. associa- tions customarily give guarantees, in U.S. dollars, for any amounts demanded in order to avoid the judicial seizure of their members' ves- sels in legal proceedings brought in the United States in respect of liabilities insured against. If IH.R. 14000 were to be enacted in its present form, this facility would be limited to providing a guarantee for an amount no greater than the amount of the restricted coverage which the associations would then be willing to provide. The fact `that legal liabilities are based on the concept of fault is a most important factor both in the cost of liability insurance and the amount of coverage which can be provided. Section 19(e) of H.R. 14000, which would impose absolute liability, without fault, save only when the spillage was caused by an act of God, would lead to a very heavy burden of increased cost to shipowners trading with your coun- try, with all the concomitant disruptive effects on such trade. LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT PATENTLY UNFAIR Moreover,. I should like to point out that it is patently unfair that H.R. 14000 would impose absolute and unlimited liability on a ship- owner to the U.S. Government, because certain circumstances could arise where the owner whose ship was the source of the oil pollution, while being absolutely innocent in respect of the damage, would never- theless be liable for it, without any adequate right of recovery against the party at fault. For example: (a) A properly anchored tanker may be damaged in collision by another vessel. The cleaning up expenses might involve a catastrophic sum if the tanker was a large one. In these circumstances, the tanker owner would be compelled to pay the cost of the cleanup to the U.S. Government, but he would have a right of recovery from the offend- ing ship only to `the extent of that vessel's limit of liability. Under the present U.S. legislation this might be virtually nothing-a situation which could not arise if the United States were to adopt legislation along the lines of the Brussels Limitation of Liability Convention of 1957. PAGENO="0403" 395 (b) Another example concerns oil pollution as the result of an act of war, and I do not think I need demonstrate the unfairness of im- posing liability on an innocent shipowner in such circumstances. INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO FIND SOLUTION You will observe that so far my evidence has been solely concerned with criticism of IFLR. 14000 in its preesnt form. I now come to the question of proposing remedies for a situation which has not only given concern to the U.S. Government, but also other governments, particularly the British Government, since the matter under consider- ation was highlighted by the unfortunate Torrey Canyon disaster last year. After that incident, the British Government immediately took action through the International Maritime Consultative Organization, commonly known as IMCO, which, as you are aware, is an agency of the United Nations on which the U.S. Government, as well as many others, is represented. IMCO decided that the proper body to investi- gate the position, particularly so far as concerns insurance and the legal questions, was the Comite Maritime International, known as the CMI, an organization composed of the national maritime law associa- tions of some 29 nations, which has been instrumental in achieving a considerable degree of imiformity in international maritime law. The CMI promptly set up an international subcommittee under the chair- manship of Lord Devhin, whose reputation as a leading authority on maritime law is, I feel certain, well known to many of you. The preseiit position is that. a working group of the subcommittee, under Lord IDevi in's leadership, has made certain positive recom- mendations, and the full subcommittee is meeting on May 2 and 3 to consider these recommendations, which may be summarized as follows: (1) A reversal of the burden of proof; that is, a requirement that the shipowner be liable for damages resulting from oil spill- age unless he can affirmatively prove that it was caused without his fault; (2) An increase in the limit of liability, within the structure of the 1957 Brussels Convention on Limitation; (3) The recognition of the right of governments to recover the cost of protective measures to prevent or minimize the effects of pollution, following a spillage, as well as the cleaning up costs. These recommendations would necessitate substantial changes in the present system of international maritime law. I should point out, in particular, that it is the legal opinion in many countries that as the law presently stands there is grave doubt in many cases as to whether any government has the right to recover such costs. The protection and indemnity associations for whom I speak support these proposals and earnestly hope that the U.S. Government will give consideration to delaying any legislation until IMCO has made its recommendations to the respective governments. Unilateral legislation in a matter of this sort by any one government cannot assist the endeavors of IMCO to reach a conclusion acceptable internationally. PRESENT LAW INADEQUATE Although these recommendations, as I have said, would result in substantial changes in the law, they would nevertheless preserve the PAGENO="0404" 396 two essential principles of liability based on the concept of negligence and the right of limitation of that liability, where there is no privity. The P. & I. associations support the recommendations because they accept that, as the law now stands, the~ position of governments in regard to oil pollution is not really satisfactory. They must be given the right to recover costs reasonably incurred by them in preventing or mitigating the damage caused by pollution-and the costs recover- able must not be unduly limited, but must be such as to give adequate protection save only in the quite exceptional case. The assumption of an additional risk of this nature would, as I have earlier pointed out, result in higher premiums, but it would never- theless be insurable. Before I conclude my statement, there is one point upon which I think I should comment. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY You have heard testimony of the representatives of the American Petroleum Institute about evidence of financial capability. I am authorized to say that so far as the P. & I. associatons are concerned, the only evidence of financial capability which an owner would be able to provide would be production of a normal certificate of entry in one of the associations; such a certificate of entry would be subject to all the rules of the association, and there could be no question of ever waiving the defenses open under the terms of such policies. You will hear from my colleague, Mr. Miller, that a similar situation exists so far as the open market policies are concerned. I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to speak to you today. I hope what I have said has been clear, but of course if there are any questions you would like to ask me, I will only be too happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Mr. WRIGHT (presiding). Mr. Shearer, your testimony has been quite comprehensive and extremely helpful to the committee. There is one other thing you have introduced for our consideration, the juxta- position we would find ourselves in with respect to the law if we were to enact legislation as proposed in the bill. POSSIBLE EFFECT ON NATION'S FOREIGN TRADE NOTED Additionally, you have introduced an element which perhaps had escaped our basic consideration in our earnest attempt to abate pollu- tion, that being what effect it might conceivably have upon the foreign trade of the United States. RIGHT OF GOVERNMENTS TO RECOVER COSTS Now, as I understand it, assuming that we feel we should go ahead with legislation of some sort, do you believe, from the standpoint of that segment of the insurance industry which deals with maritime isurance, it is an acceptable proposition that governments have a right to recover such costs as may be reasonably be incurred, but that there should be a limitation and that the question of liability without fault is a wholly unacceptable one? PAGENO="0405" 397 Mr. SHEARER. That would be the position, sir. A limit of liability is absolutely essential, as you have already heard from Mr. Casey in the shipowning industry. The P. & I. associations whom I represent, particularly my own one, is very well represented on C.M.I., that is the Comite Maritime International, and we certainly accept it; but with these large tankers there must be some new legislation allowing the governments to take over this job. Yesterday and today, some of your colleagues on the committee ex- pressed their conviction that there must be a central authority, and I think it would be true to say that the magnitude of this problem is such that no independent commercial organization, as we know it to- day, is capable of dealing with the problem such as faced us in the Torrey Canyon and the unfortunate case in Puerto Rico recently. The organization which I represent have at their disposal specialists who are able to deal with the normal liability case which has arisen and which does arise. We have had many cases of oil spilling in the last 10 years. None of them have been anything like the magnitude of the Torrey Canyon. There have been cases of cleaning up marinas, shall we say, 600 or 700 tons of oil spilled out, a job which can be done fairly quickly and reasonably cheaply. The Torrey Canyon faced us with a position which I do not think anybody admitted until it happened, and it is essential that govern- ments do have that right, that there must be a limit of liability; and, also, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the provisions in 19(e) which suggest `that a ship which is at anchor should be responsible for the incident, with no right of recovery from the other ship, under the present U.S. legislation, is very unfair, because it is not the ship that is at anchor that has caused the pollution, but another ship that has run into it. SUNKEN VESSELS Mr. WRIGHT. On another matter, the Navy recently certified that there are some 104 identifiable tankers lying on the `bottom of the sea around the coastline of the United States. Most of these were sunk during World War II. Nobody knows with certainty when the bulk- heads may rust through and release certain oils. Yesterday I read in the newspaper of an unidentifiable oil, an un- identifiable source, that has spilled up on the beaches at Waikiki. By coincidence, I had been there less than a week before. Similarly, by coincidence, I had visited the battleships Arizona and Oregon, where those battlesships were sunk on December 7, 1941. It was speculated by some that either that ship or some other ship sunk by Japanese bombs might have been the cause of the belated release of the oil slick that appeared in the waters of Waikiki. That kind of situation, of course, is a bit strange, but it is possible. You are telling me, as I understand it, your groups for whom you speak do, as a customary practice, provide recovery in this type of li- ability for shipowners, for oceangoing vessels. RECENT CASES OF PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENTS TO ACT Mr. SHEARER. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman, and it also might interest you to know that in two cases within my knowledge PAGENO="0406" 398 in the last year, where we have been faced with a possibility of an oil pollution, we have actually paid two governments to get rid of the offending ships. In both of these cases, the ships exploded in midocean, but there was a potential danger. In the first one, the French Navy saiik the ves- sel, and in the second case, the British Navy sent out the nuclear sub- marine to get rid of it and we paid the cost of that amount to the gov- ernment as a substitute expense in mitigation of possible damages. There is no question that the association would not only assume, as they do now, the liability to pay the third parties in third-party claims, but also any liability toward the government which might be enacted in national or international legislation, provided the ship- owners had some limit of liability. Mr. WTRIGHT. You heard the testimony earlier tins afternoon? Mr. SHEARER. And my colleagues mentioned something here,, provided it is based on fault. There must be a fault on the offending party to make someone absolutely liable against the concept of ship- owners' liability. Mr. WRIGHT. You have heard the testimony given the committee earlier today by Mr. Checket, speaking in behalf of the petroleum in- dustry. Were you in the committee room? Mr. SHEARER. Yes. MANDATORY INSURANCE Mr. WRIGHT. In your judgment as an insurer, do you regard a pro- gram such as recommended in that testimony to be workable and feasible and practical? Mr. SHEARER. What Mr. Checket is, in fact, saying in his testimony, he has recommended to you a committee system of compulsory in- surance. It is certainly possible to have a system of compulsory in- surance as exists, I think, as you, yourself, mentioned, with motor' cars. You cannot drive, certainly in Europe, without compulsory in- surance, and you might be a~ble to have a~ similar system trading to and from the United States. Mr. WRIGHT. You feel that this would be a workable program that the insurers would have no problem providing insurance under such a system? Mr. SHEARER. Mr. Chairman, I have pointed out in my evidence that an insurance policy as such, or a certificate of liability is only a policy of insurance, and there are always available to the insurer cer- tain defenses, and they are very rarely invoked. But one of the most obvious ones I would draw to your attention would be wilful mis- conduct. If I have a cargo on board, shall we say, and I deliberately throw it overboard, I am not covered. If, for instance, I have a ship and I delib- erately sink it for the purpose of getting my insurance money, I am not covered. But, in all normal foreseeable cases, a certificate of in- surance would be satisfactory evidence. It is only the rare case, such as envisioned now, where it would not work feasibly. Mr. BLATNIK. (presiding). I do want to say this, Mr. Shearer, that it has been most helpful, not only helpful but a most interesting state- ment. PAGENO="0407" 399 CHANGES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUiRED Now you state on page 8 of your testimony, in the second paragraph, beginning with "These recommendations would necessitate substantial changes in the present system of international maritime law." You state further along, "that it is the legal opinion in many countries that as the law presently stands there is grave doubt in many cases as to whether any government has the right to recover such costs." I am very surprised and just a little disappointed in some of the staff work that has been done by those in the legal part of the Depart- ment of Interior that helped to draw up this legislation, or these proposals. It would be our thought, certainly, that there should be some double- checking with the people experienced in this extremely complicated field of maritime law and especially international maritime law. We are deeply indebted for your thoughtful presentation and a presentation based on obviously considerable international experience. I do want to emphasize that you have made a very, very important contribution and we shall explore this in much greater detail and see that we do come up with language that will be realistic and pertinent and practical in its application. Mr. SHEARER. The question of the change of law which would be recommended by the committee, said that it is doubtful that the law as it stands, it is no more doubtful than in the case of the Torrey Can- yon, and with the extent and the right of the British Government to recover is a question which has given lawyers in many countries very, ve.ry considerable food for thought. And this paragraph which I put in here was put in at the suggestion of one of my senior partners, Mr. Miller, who is not only a partner of the firm, but he is also the vice president of the Comite Maritime International, and before I came here Monday I discussed this very point with him, and he said not only in Britain but also in France, and many other countries, the posi- tion is very, very unclear; and any recommendation by the Devlin com- mittee on this point would clarify the international law, not only the national law in this respect, because the convention would be put forward, which was accepted by the signatory countries and would make the position absolutely clear, which it is not at present. Mr. EDMONDSON. Has testimony already been given? I was out of the committee for a few moments. Has any testimony been given as to when the Devlin committee report would be available to this committee? Mr. SHEARER. You will see in my statement., sir that they meet on May 2 and 3. Mr. EDMONDSON. You mentioned May 2 and May 3, I believe, is the report expected to be forthcoming immediately after May 3? Mr. SHEARER. It is going to be considered by the CMI on the 2d and 3d of May, but I understand that IMCO is not meeting to consider those recommendations until the autumn. Mr. EDMONDSON. I see. MI:. SHEARER. But the actual recommendation which I have set out in this document here, they are the recommendations; but they will be made public around the 2d and 3d of May. PAGENO="0408" 400 In a way, I have made them public today in front of this committee. Mr. BLATNIK. That is all I have, thank you. Mr. WRIGHT. You mentioned the serious question with respect to certain countries. Does that include the United States, do you know? Mr. SHEARER. Do you mean are they represented on IMCO? I do not understand you. Yes, they are represented, but I am not quite sure whether I have your question in mind. It has been pointed out to me, sir, that there are people from your own State Department on the IMCO committee. Mr. WRIGHT. The question in your statement submitted on page 8, where you say it is the opinion of many countries that as the law presently stands there is grave doubt as to whether any government has the right to recover such costs. To your knowledge, is that being held in legal circles in the United States? Mr. SHEARER. I do not know the answer to that question immedi- ately, but I can find out on the spot from my advisers. I am advised by the lawyers who are here with me today, the posi- tion of the United States is much the same as in England; but it is grave doubt as to whether protective measures, such as were used by the British Government, the cost of bombing, et cetera, will ever be recovered. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. Mr. SHEARER. I should also mention the two cases which I men- tioned earlier, the French and British Governments. In one case, the French Government performed the task without being asked, and we paid them immediately; in the other case, we particularly requested, first of all, the American Navy to try to help us, and then the British Navy, and then the Portuguese, and then the British Navy finally did the job. Mr. WRIGHT (presiding). Mr. McCarthy, do you have any ques- tions? Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. Shearer, I found your statement very interesting. Actually, I read it this morning on the Associated Press wire. You would be interested to know that you topped one of five Americans, out of 200 million, who might be a President of the United States. Your state- ment was carried ahead of Governor Rockefeller. SHOULD CONGRESS WAIT FOR INTERNATIONAL BODY TO ACT? Do I understand you correctly to say that we should not do any- thing until next autumn? Is that when the IMCO report comes out? Mr. SHEARER. I can understand, sir; your view that you want to do something as quickly as possible. Mr. MCCARTHY. I did not say that. Mr. SHEARER. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I think the view of other maritime countries would be to express the hope that in the same way that the British Government did not rush into legislation PAGENO="0409" 401 after the Torrey Canyon, that the U.S. Government might see their way to do nothing on this particular point until the organization, on which their own Government is represented, has made their recom- mendations; and it would be hoped that the recommendations that they would make would be acceptable to your Government and all other governments. Mr. MCCARTHY. We also have other responsibilities. I mean, I can see our State Department is represented on that committee, but we have the people of the United States to think about. Here we have this latest incident in Hawaii, the very day that we opened these hearings. We asked Great Britain not to do anything about any panic legis- lation after the Torrey Canyon incident. Now we have this. You ask us to wait. Then we will have another incident, and we will ask some- body else to wait; and it seems to me somebody has to break this cycle. And to do so, we must have a pioneering effort in law to establish the principle, and I think most members of this committee accepted, before you sort of disillusioned us, that a government of a nation has a right to clean up a spill and to assess the cost on the person who is responsible. We have had adequate legal opinion that preceded the introduction of these bills, that this is a sound principle and I do not see any reason for us waiting. I think eventually this country, and every other na- tion affected is going to come to this position just to protect them- selves; and allied with this is the point that you make, that there should. be a ceiling on the liability. Well, the Torrey Canyon is just a rowboat compared to some of these huge ships that are being built, I understand, in Japan; so that if anything, it seems to me that the liability, the potential for damage is increasing rather than decreasing. I do not see how this committee can just wait around until next autumn when we would get a report. I think we have waited long enough. We wanted to do something at the time of the Torrey Canyon, and people said wait, wait, and now you are saying to wait. I think that someone ought to act, and this committee has a responsi- bility to 200 million Americans, and people do want action. They are criticizing us for waiting and waiting and waiting. They say, why don't we do something; and now you say don't do anything at all until autumn. Mr. SHEARER. Mr. McCarthy, I do appreciate the result of this par- ticular position now in Puerto Rico and the other one down in the Caribbean, and the latest one in Hawaii. There is tremendous pressure upon the U.S. administration to do something. There are two things which could be done in this respect. Either the U.S. Government, via its representative on IMCO, could, as I see it, tell IMCO that unless something was done sooner than the autumn, you would act unilaterally, which might have an effect on them; and if it did not have an effect on them, I can see that you would wish to act. The second point you raise is the question of the increasing liability on these enormous tankers. Now, I think my colleague, Mr. Peter Miller, will explain to you that it is just because this liability is increasing that the world in- surance market available for coverage is decreasing. PAGENO="0410" 402 Now, it is of no use in our opinion of the United States putting a provision in the bill which makes a shipowner absolutely liable without limit for something, if there is no chance of insurance coverage not being available, and therefore, the U.S. Government not being able to recover that cost. What we submit is that the U.S. Government, if it cannot wait for the IMCO recommendation, enact this bill in some form. Mr. MCCARTHY. What was that? THREE POINTS STRESSED Mr. SHEARER. That it enact this bill in some form so as to preserve for the shipowner a right of limitation in some amount, and that. amount should not be greater than the amount of world insurance coverage available. Secondly, in this legislation certain items are tied up so as to make sure that it is the person who is responsible who pays for the claim and not the person who happens to physically emit, or the ship that emits the cargo. Third, tha.t the position of liability with fault should be preserved. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think those three points are clearly constructive, and I would hope that we can take those very seriously into considera- tion. I certainly will. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). Mr. Peter Miller, your testimony will follow, I understand, this. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, sir, gentlemen: I think that you have been so kind to Mr. Shearer and myself, par- ticularly on the question of time, that I could perhaps assist by putting my statement into the record and perhaps quickly paraphrasing it to you, if I may. Mr. BLATNIK. You may, and it would be very much appreciated. Your statement will appear at this point in the record in its entirety. (Prepared statement of Peter N. Miller follows:) STATEMENT OF PETER N. MILLER Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN, my name is Peter N. Miller. I am a Director of Thos. R.. Miller and Son Insurance Limited of London. My firm has been brokers at Lloyds for nearly seventy years and I personally am an Under- writing Member of Lloyds. My firm has always been resi~onsible for placing the Reinsurances for the London Group of Protection and Indemnity Associations (including the Scandinavian Associations) to which my colleague Mr. J. Shearer has referred. For the last ten years these reinsurances have been my personal responsibility. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, for your kindness in allowing me to give testimony to you; this testimony is in support of that already given by Mr. Shearer and in elaboration of certain points made by him. Mr. Shearer spoke on behalf of the Associations. I speak on behalf of the Reinsurance Underwriters, the other major parties to the insurance of Shipowners' liabilities. REINSITRANCE EXPLAINED First, I would like to tell you briefly how the reinsurance of the London Group is arranged. I receive instructions each year from the Group (since the contract is arranged on an annual basis, like most insurance contracts) and these include the instruction to obtain the maximum~ amount of coverage using all available markets. The actual placing of the contract then takes my PAGENO="0411" 403 firm about two to three months to negotiate and complete, since we have to place the risk in London in the provincial markets of the United Kingdom, the European and American markets, those of the Far East and any others available and willing to accept part of the risk. I am thus able to be definite when I say that my firm obtains the maximum amount of coverage possible. The figure at the present time is approximately $50,000,000, each vessel, any one accident. The Contract is placed in excess of a retention by the Group; this retention varies, but basically the Group takes all claims other than those in the major catastrophe class. Thus, by the cooperation between the Group and the Insurance markets of the world which it is my job to arrange, the shipowner is protected to the maximum possible degree. UNLIMITED LIABILITY UNINSTJRABLE It is not possible for commercial Underwriters to write policies of insurance for this type of risk without a limit on their total coverage. I must therefore say on behalf of underwriters that the proposal of H.R. 14000 to introduce unlimited liability presents them with an impossible situation. Unlimited liability for oil pol- liition, is as such, uninsurable. NEGLIGENCE AS BASIS OF LIABILITY In order to elaborate on the protection which would be available, I must for -one moment turn to a subject mentioned by Mr. Shearer, namely the importance of the concept of negligence as the basis of -liability. Underwriters in many countries are very often unwilling to write Shipowner Liability insurance for several reasons. For example: (1) the underwriters whom. I ask to underwrite the liabilities, are already committed as underwriters of the physical hull and -cargo. They may therefore be unwilling to expose themselves to further financial commitments on the so-me von-tn-re; (2) -they -also dislike the long period of delay before settlement of liability claims is reached. Working as they do on an annual or triennial basis, the possibility of claims being outstanding for as long -as ten years has a bearing on the "line" they are prepared to write on such risks. When it is possible to persuade underwriters to accept part of the reinsurance -contract, the m-ost important consideration-s in their minds in assessing the -cost are the -amount to which a sh-i-powner can, in normal circumstances, limit his liability under the existing law, and the fact that such liability is based -on fault or negligence. REASONS FOR MAXIMUM LIMIT It was these two facts which were uppermost in Underwriters' minds when, as instructed -by the London Group, I approached them to discuss the matter of -oil pollution in the last few months. Two points emerged; any alteration -in the exist-ing laws on limitation, or liability based on negligence would severely restrict the amount of coverage obtainable and would severely increase its cost. I have most carefully discussed the matter with the leading underwriters of this type -of risk, and while only a placing can show the exact position, it was their unani- mous opinion that the maximum limit would be in the region of $10-$15 million each accident each vessel. Let -me summarize the reasons again: (i) The sweeping away of the normal underwriting criteria for such risks, namely, negligence as the basis for liability and the right to limit such liability to a reasonable figure -in the absence of privity. (ii) The heavy involvement in the other -interests affected by a major casualty, namely the ship and cargo. (iii) The heavy involvement by way of the reinsurance I already place on other liabilities stemming from the same casualty, e.g. removal of wrecks, etc. (iv) The fact that the-ir -commitment is calculated on an "each vessel, each accident" basis. Thus t:hey could have a large loss on the policy many times over in each year. What I have already said, puts fairly, I hope, the objections of underwriters to the proposed legislation. I cannot presume to suggest alternatives beyond what i~-ir. Shearer has said, which is supported in principle by underwriters. FINANCIAL RE5PONSIBUJTY Finally, I turn to financial -responsibility; here the attitude of the British Mar- ket (where 00% -of liability risks are underwritten) is the same as that of the Pro-tection and Indemnity Associations. They are quite prepared that policies PAGENO="0412" 404 issued by them are used as evidence of proper insurance. Perhaps I need not re- mind you of the record of my market in honouring its obligations in your country from San Francisco in `190G to Hurricane Betsy in 19~5, or that massive dollar funds are maintained in your country to meet dollar liabilities. Underwriters at Lloyds and other British Underwriters have already paid claims totaling several hundred million dollars on account of Hurricane Betsy alone. But it would be quite impossible for underwriters to guarantee wholesale the financial responsibility of every assured, or to surrender in advance possible defences un- der a policy, in the very rare circumstances when such defences have to be in- voked. Finally, I wish to thank you again for your kindness in allowing a foreigner such as myself to appear before you. I realize that I have put forward only objections; `but I wish to associate myself `and my underwriters with the posi- tive suggestions put forward by Mr. Shearer. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. As I explained in the testimony, I am a director of a firm, Thomas II. Miller & Son. We have placed for many years the reinsurance for the London Group, w~hich Mr. Shearer has mentioned. Thus, it is that Mr. Shearer is speaking on behalf of the associations and I am speaking on behalf of `the other half of the party to the insurance of shipowners' legal liability; namely, reinsuring underwriters. UNLIMITED LIABILITY UNINSURABLE I explained in the testimony how those reinsurance arrangements work, but the point I want to bring out on behalf of underwriters is simply this. They have the greatest sympathy for what you are trying to do, but H.R. 14000, as it stands, presents them with an impossible sit- uation because unlimited liability for oil pollution is, as such, unin- sura.ble. It is very difficult sometimes to persuade underwriters to in- sure, to underwrite shipowners' legal liabilities, because they are al- ready so very heavily committed on the other part of the venture, like the ship and its cargo. But when one can persuade them to underwrite these risks, two things are foremost in `their minds: can they say to themselves, can the siiipowner limit his liability and his liability based on fault? AMOUNT OF COVERAGE OBTAINABLE FOR OIL POLLUTION I have most carefully discussed the matter with the reinsuring un- derwriters in London, to try to get some idea of the amount of cover- age for oil pollution which could be commercially obtainable, and I have come to the conclusion this figure would be between $10 million and $15 million. That is for each accident, each vessel. If I may quickly say why it is about this figure and not more, it is because you would be sweeping away under the proposed legislation the normal underwriting criteria for these risks which are negli- gence, as the basis for liability, and the right to limit such liability to a reasonable figure in the absence of privily, the heavy involvement in the other parts of the venture, and also the heavy involvement by way of the normal reinsurances on the other liabilities which would stem from the same casualty, such as the removal of the wreck and this is particularly `borne out where, supposing there were a liability on the shipowner in the Puerto Rican incident, not only would the under- writer be faced with the cost of legal liability for oil spillage, but the cost for the removal of the wreck. PAGENO="0413" 405 I do not presume, sir, to suggest alternatives beyond what Mr. Shearer has said, but what he has said is entirely supported in principle by underwriters and underwriters of the world. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Only one other point I would like to make and that is official responsibility. The British markets are quite prepared that policies issued by them are used as evidence of proper insurance, and perhaps I need not re- mind you of the record of my market in honoring its obligations in your country, from San Francisco to Hurricane Betsy, or that massive dollar funds are maintained in your country to meet dollar liabilities. Underwriters at Lloyd's and other underwriters have paid claims totaling hundreds of millions of dollars on account of Hurricane Betsy. It would be impossible for commercial underwriters to guar- antee wholesale the financial responsibility of every assured or to ren- der in advance possibl~ defenses irnder a policy in the very rare cir- cumstances when such defenses have to be invoked, for example, when a criminal shipowner sinks his ship deliberately. This is a good example, Mr. Shearer gave you. I have nothing further to add. I am* very pleased to answer any questions, and finally I tilank you again in allowing foreigners, such as myself, to appear before you. Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions, Mr. McCarthy? Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; a.nd thank you, Mr. Miller. INSURANCE OF $10 TO $15 MILLION FOR OIL SPILL LIABILITY Now, you say that your conversations with your colleagues in the industry would indicate that you might be able to insure up to between $10 million and $15 million against liabilities incurred in an oil spill. Is that what you say? Mr. MILLER. Not quite, sir. To be precise, $10 million to $15 million each accident, each vessel. This is a rather important consideration, be- cause you could have 20 oil spills in a year, and this is why I am saying $10 million to $15 million on each of those occasions could, in my opinion, be insured. It is a very volatile market which was hit by such catastrophes as Torrey Canyon and all of this, and may well contract; but that is the figure at the present time. Mr. MCCARTHY. I am pleased to hear you say that, because I noticed tha.t Mr. Checket gave us an overall maximum limit of $8 million. I am glad to see that the British are willing to go several millions higher. Mr. MILLER. Congressman, could I comment on that? Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I wish you would. Mr. MILLER. It may appear at first sight that the two are contra- dictory. I do not think so. Mr. Checket, I think, is saying $8 million is a reasonably sufficient fund for anything that can happen, could be obtainable at reasonable cost. I am sa.ying something different, making a different point. I am merely saying what is technically possible. PAGENO="0414" 406 Well, $15 million coverage could be bought by some people, but it would be obviously much more expensive than $8 million. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, Mobil Oil Co. could afford that, I am sure. Let me make one other point. With the bigger ships coming in, and you are more familiar than I am with the Torrey Canyon disaster and the cost involved, do you envision, with the larger ships that we could conceivably have damages up to $15 million resulting from a disaster with one of these huge ships? Mr. MILLER. Congressman, this is, I think, only a personal opinion, but this is something which will be answered by the scientists, ob- viously, with the `bigger ships, with the 200,000 tonners coming to my country at the present time. If they strand there, if there was a loss of oil and a lot of damage; and it could cause millions of dollars worth of damage, but I would have thought, purely guesswork, that given the scientist, `the chemist, they can produce countermeasures in the oil industry and there would be little risk of going over a figure of $15 million. Certainly, as an underwriter, I would hope not. Mr. MCCARTHY. So that $15 million is really probably the limit at. least, as we can see now, in terms of any potential damage; and the problem would not even really even reach near that, is that what you are saying? Mr. MILLER. That is my personal guess, sir, but again it can be no more than a guess. OIL SPILLAGE FORMERLY NO RISK In the past, oil spillage was no risk. It was a tiny percentage of ship- owner liability claims, and suddenly we had the Torrey Canyon. My firm, and Mr. Shearer's firm, had paid literally hundreds of claims for' oil spillage previously, that is previous to the Torrey Canyon incident, of a relatively small nature; and then suddenly we had Torrey' Canyon.. What I might say would just be a guess. TORREY CANYON CLAIMS Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if we have in the record the total volume of claims that were paid out as a result of the Torrey Canyon? Do you know that figure? Mr. MILLER. The claims, sir, have not yet been codified or settled.. It is a very uncertain figure. Mr. MCCARTHY. Would you care to estimate what it might be, roughly, give us a range? Mr. MILLER. I think my colleague, Mr. Shearer, is better qualified than I am on that point, to give you an an answer. Mr. SHEARER. So far as the Torrey Canyon is concerned, there have been very, very wide estimates as to what the claims are. You may remember reading in the papers last year that, most un- fortunately, from the owners' point of view, the vessel put in to Singa-. pore, where the British Government had a writ issued for her arrest, and she was thereupon arrested, and the amount of security put up was in the neighborhood of $3 million. Now, this vessel is a large vessel and is able to limit liability in certain jurisdictions, but not in PAGENO="0415" 407 others, to an amount not exceeding about £1.2 million, and in dollars that would be about $3 million. I suppose under the new rate, the devalued pound, it would be a little bit more. There are two questions from Congressman McCarthy-what is the amount involved in the Torrey Canyon incident? If you include the cost of the bombing and all that sort of operation, well, then, it is supposedly thought to be in the neighborhood of £3 million for the British Government, but it is also reported that the French Govern- ment has other rather small claims. One would not have thought that the total amount of expense in- volved, as opposed to the liability of the ship, was in the neighborhood of more than £4 million. I am sorry I cannot be more definite in that, but the position is extremely vague. Mr. MCCARTHY. Did you say £4 million? Mr. SHEARER. £4 million would be, shall we say, the U.S. equivalent of $9 million. That is an absolute maximum figure so far as is known. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Shearer and Mr. Miller, we thank you both very much. Have a safe trip back to London. Mr. SHEARER. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for allowing us to come over here. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, gentlemen. Our next witness is Mr. James F. Wright, executive director, Dela- ware Water Basin Commission. THE "WATER QTJALTTY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968" STATEMENT OF JAMES F. WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I know that your patience has been somewhat extended today, and I will just briefly summarize my remarks. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. That will appear in the record in its entirety at this point, and you may summarize it. (The prepared statement of James F. Wright follows:) STATEMEN,T OF JAMES F. WRIGHT Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James F. Wright, executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission, a four-State-Federal agency for the management and development of water resources within the Delaware watershed. One of its major functions is water pollution control. We have already established `standards and implementing regulations under our compact and under the existing Federal legislation to begin positive action for sw~eeping improvements. GENERAL ENDORSEMENT The opportunity to comment on legislation to `amend the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act (H.R. 15907 and the companion Senate version 5. 3206) is `very much appreciated. Before remarking on specific provisions in `the proposal. I would like to inform the committee that the Delaware River Basin Commission PAGENO="0416" 408 endorses the legislation generally and its intent. This legislation seeks to break loose the necessary construction projects for pollution control purposes delayed because of inadequacy of Federal financing. We are encouraged by this effort. We believe that with certain modifications Ft can provide a way ito do the job without disrupting the financial commitments of the Federal Government, of the States and of the localities. We have estimated that the overall clean-up job in the Delaware River Basin has a capital `cost of around $500 million. About $300 million of this total is for municipal `sewage treatment. Of this latter amount, the Federal Government would contribute 55 percent, `or $165 million. So you see, we have `a substantial interest in anything that will break up the financial log jam that now confronts this program. Because this legislation is so important, it is essential th'at it be an good as possible. Proposed clauses which could operate to confuse or delay the massive clean-up effort that lies ahead should be identified `and corrected. With this in mind, I would like to suggest certain points referenced to HR. 15907 which I feel may operate to the disadvantage of all parties if the Congress does not undertake `corrective measures or clarification at this time. The bill would provide three forms of financial support for local projects: (1) Annual payments for local debt service `on bonds issued to finance the Federal share; (2) Federal guarantees of local debt service on any obligations issued to finance a project, including the local share; and (3) Thirdly, an annual Federal subsidy to assure that the local borrowing cost on the non-Federal share will retain a favorable differential of one per- centage point or one-fourth of the net effective interest rate, whichever is less, as compared with Federal borrowing cost. This third form of aid is apparently provided to offset the provisions of section (f) (3) of the bill which would `abolish the traditional tax exemption of any local revenue bonds secured by revenues of a project which is aided under the act. It i's quite understandable that the Federal Government should not want the new legislation to result indirectly in tax-exempt Federal borrowing which has long `been contrary to Federal policy. TAX EXEMPT BOND ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE RAISED HERE Unfortunately, the `bill goes further `and would abolish the tax exemption of I~cal borrowing for the local s'hare which has long been `a keystone `of local financin'g. This i's an unfortunate introduction of a controversial policy proposal of the Treasury regarding the tax exemption of municipal bonds generally, which the Congress has thus far never `accepted. The provision of the `bill for a debt service subsidy to maintain a differential in favor of local borrowing is unlikely to `be adequate to offset higher interest rates. Most importantly, it will not avoid embroiling the whole clean waters program in the issue of taxable `and tax-exempt municipal bond's. It may well be as'ked w'hy this particular program should be `burdened with that issue when no other municipal financing, with or without Federal ai'd, ha's the same or `any comparable disadvantage. The municipal bond market provides highly specialized financial support for all kinds of State and lcoal public `benefits, plu's impi~ovements. It operates on the smallest of profit and has `characteristics that make it difficult to `compete with Federal and corporate bonds. As compared with Federal bonds, it has few attractions other than the income tax immunity that appeals to en'terprising investors. As of the first of this year, Sta'te and local :bonds were paying interest of about 4.31 percent. T'hi's compares to 5.18 percent for long-term Federal bonds and around 6.45 percent for corporate bond's. If the tacome tax immunity is abolished, many fiscal `analysts believe that the municipal bond market, as we know it, `would no `longer exist. `I mention these considerations without any intention of entering the issue of taxable versus tax-exempt securities. The `point is that this is much too complicated a matter of `public policy to intro'duce `through the back door o'f a program inten'ded to assist and stimuldte solutions of the w'ater pollution problem. Other urgent and expanding public programs, `such `as housing `and education, will have an impact on the municipal `bond market. The issue of tax exemption is equally relevan~t to these other `programs and for the `same rea'sons. PAGENO="0417" 409 Therefore, is seems logical that the issue of tax exemption be considered by the Congress as a matter of general policy, rather than as one part of a pollution bilL To do otherwise might `be self-defeating to a large extent, since a taxable municipal security will hardly be able to compete for the favor of investors as against tax-exempt municipal securities issued for other purposes, regardless of the rate differential or other Federal subsidy implied by the bill. LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON INTEREST RATES It is also important to note that if municipal `bonds were to he made taxable, the higher interest rates would exceed the legal intere~t rate limit set `by State law. The four Delaware Basin States have legal limitations of either 5 or 6 percent. Our own commission's limitation is 6 percent. PREFINANCING CUTOFF On page 2, line 3, section (c) would end the prefluancing authorization set up in the 1960 law. We think this is unwise and unnecessary. States that have shown the initiative that was eiwoura'ged by this prefinancing arrangement should not now *be penalized. Retention of the prefinancing provisions would continue the national goal of abating pollution as quickly as possible. POPULATION-SMSA REQUIREMENT On page 5, line 21, the bill requires that the Secretary, prior to entering into any contra'~t, must determine that the treatment works `will serve an area with 125,000 people or more, or a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the Bureau of the Budget. The Secretary is then given latitude to use judg- ment when he finds it not reasonably possible for such works to serve all of a standard metropolitan statistical area. A very literal interpretation of this could restrict the development of regional systems to a point which I do not believe you wish to see happen. The standard statistical areas are rather large `and frequently include several good-sized cities and `many autonomous suburban and rural communities as well as many scattered industrial plants. This provision should be modified to permit `the development of regional systems which might incorporate large `amounts of industrial Wastes, together with sm'aller amounts of municipal waste, since `there will be circumstances arising u-hereby the most effective method of treating the was'tes in certain sections within a metropolitan area could be `best `handled at the time by a subregional system. You may wish to consider, instead of speaking of an area of 125,000 people, to add "or an area producing wastes with a population equivalent of 125,000 people." This would enable the creation of regional complexes that combine large indus- trial wastes with lesser municipal loads in an efficient manner. The principle is not new. It has been done before under the earlier grant programs to a limited extent, but the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 offered us the prospect of engaging this on a scale heretofore not possible. Such a promise should not now be restricted inadvertently by language which would focus the effort almost com- pletely upon the large metropolitan systems. ELIGIBILITY FOR AREAS OF SEASONAL POPULATION One further point concerning size of population in the affected area. Recreation and reservoir areas very much need protection from water quality impairment, but most such areas have small, year-round populations. I suggest that this sec- tion of the bill be changed so as to include areas with a seasonal, as well as permanent, population in excess of 125,000 persons. Pollution control around the 1000-square-mile impact region of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, for example, will be handled as a single unified system. The permanent year-round population of this region is now about 80,000. However, in the sum- mer, after the National recreation area is in operation, this population u-ill swell to more than 300,000. RESERVE FUND On page 6, lines 21 through 24, the bill reads, "(ii)A reserve to meet, to the greatest extent possible, expansion or replacement requirements of the treatment works service area :" Literally interpreted, this could mean building growth capa- bility into a system for as much as 50 to 100 years, the life of most interceptors 04-376-68----27 PAGENO="0418" 410 and collecting sewers. However, the life of waste treatment plants usually ranges from 20 to 30 years, the period which would be included within the contract prerogatives of the Secretary. Is it the intent that these major trunk sewers and interceptors be laid down in the case of regional systems with capacities esti- mated to be sufficient to handle loads 50 or 100 years hence? If this is the intent, it should be pointed out that we are asking the present generation to prepay capi- tal construction that will not be used except by their grandchildren and great- grandchildren. I suggest that the congressional intent on this issue be definitely expressed in the committee report as a guide to executive administration of the act. INTERSTATE AGENCY APPROVAL Page 7, line 5, subsection (D). May I suggest that this paragraph be amended to include the approval, where appropriate, of interstate water pollution control agencies, as well as the State water pollution control agency. This would conform it better with the following subsection (e) whenever "such works are part of an effective river basin pollution control plan or management program." PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION REQUIREMENT Page 8, lines 17 through 20 requires that the design and operating plant or treatment works be adequate, in the judgment of the Secretary, to insure the maximum efficiency of operation. Again the intent of the Congress should be indicated in the committee report. I am sure that a detailed and duplicatory Federal review of State and interstate design clearances is not intended. It is wholly appropriate that objective site selection and construction and operating criteria, acceptable to both the Federal and State pollution control agencies, be jointly developed and followed in the design and construction of plants and systems. These, however, should be applied in detail by the first-line reviewing agency. They should not be the subject of a tedious and prolonged second or third review by central authority, which is tremendously short of manpower to handle this job. A form of quality control can be followed here. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION Page 9, line 1, et seq., requires initiation of an effective statewide treatment works operator certification program approved by the Secretary by 1970. We think this is good, and would respectfully suggest that while the plan of certifi- cation might be established by that time, the development and training of an adequate supply of operators may not be capable of early accomplishment. I suggest that the committee may wish to note that this will have to be a develop- mental effort, and between now and 1970 it may not be possible to produce the full number of qualified operators that will be needed as this program develops completely. We do not have comments on the remaining amendments which appear to be largely a matter of corrective detail, rather than substantive additions. Again, I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to talk with you on this matter. Thank you. THE ~WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 19 68" GENERAL ENDORSEMENT Mr. WRIGHT. First, I would like to say I do appreciate very much the opportunity to comment on this legislation, and I would like to inform the committee that the general Delaware River Basin Com- mission does endorse this legislation in general terms and intent. We estimate our own overall cleanup job in the Delaware Basin has a capital cost of around $500 million, about $300 million of this would be from municipal sewage treatment, and of this amount, a Federal contribution in the amount of 55 percent would be some $165 million. I think we can establish a substantial interest that will break up the financial logjam that is now holding up so much of the work. PAGENO="0419" 411 TAX-EXEMPT BOND ISSUE SI-IOtJLD NOT BE RAISED HERE The section 3(f) of the bill as now before you would abolish the tra- ditional tax exemption of any local revenue bonds secured by revenues of a project which is aided under the Act. We quite understand that the Federal Government does not want new legislation to result indirectly in tax-exempt Federal borrowing, which has long been contrary to Federal policy. The present bill goes further and abolishes the tax exemption for the local borrowing which has been a keystone of local financing. We feel this is an unfortunate introduction of a. controversial policy proposal regarding tax exemption of municipal bonds generally which the Congress has thus far never accepted. We would point out that provision of the bill for a debt service subsidy to maintain a differential in favor of local borrowing is un- likely to he adequate to offset higher interest rates. The municipal bond market is a highly specialized financial market. It operates in a very small margin of profit. It has characteristics that make it difficult to compete with Federal and corporate bonds, and, as compared with Federal bonds, it has few attractions. As of the first of this year, State and local bonds are paying about 4.3 percent. This compares to 5.2 percent for the long-term Federal bonds, and around 6.5 percent for corporate bonds. If the income tax immunity is abolished, the municipal bond market would no longer exist. I mention these without any intention of enter- ing the issue of taxable versus nonta.xahle securities. This is a much broader public policy question, and I do not propose to get into it a.t this time. I would simply suggest that, as a matter of general policy, this would appear to be an introduction of a very important change into one area of the municipal market which would operate to the disservice if the water pollution control program. I think that if the municipal bonds locally issued for the local share and for the State share can be continued to be taxexempt, that a great deal of this problem would be avoided. LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON INTEREST RATES I might just add that the four Delaware Basin States have legal limitations of 5 percent or 6 percent. Our own limitation is 6 percent. I believe that without the tax exemption all of these would be ex- ceeded in the market as it now stands, and that is before the heavy entry of investment. PREFINANCING CUTOFF My next point is that page 2, line 3, section (c) would terminate the present financing authorization set up in the 1966 law. We think this is unwise and unnecessary, in that States, which have shown the ithtiative that was encouraged by this financing, should not now be penalized and retention of the present financing should continue. I do not feel that these are mutually exclusive. PAGENO="0420" 412 POPULATION-SMSA REQUIREMENT On page 5, line 21, the bill requires that the Secretary, prior to entering into any contract, must determine that the treatment works will serve an area of 125,000 people or more or the standard metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Budget. Literally interpreted, this might restrict the development of re- gional systems. The metropolitan standard statistical areas are quite large. They include large cities and many autonomous suburban and rural communities and scattered industrial plants. Since there will `be circumstances arising wher~by the most effective method of treating the `waste in certain circumstances wi'thin the `met- ropolitan area could best be handled by a subregional system, I suggest you may want to consider, instead of speaking of an area with 125,000 people, a phrase along the line of ordinary producing waste with a population equivalent of 125,000 people. This would enable the crea- `tion of regional complexes, confine large industrial waste with lesser municipal loads. I would cite the fact that this has been done to a limited extent under the earlier grant programs, the opportunity of engaging in it on a larger scale `should not be foreclosed inadvertently at this time. One other point with respect to thi's. Recreation reservoir areas very much need protection, but most of these have `small year-round populations. I suggest this section of the bill be changed also to include `areas with a seasonal as well as permanent population in excess of 125,000 people. As an example, the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area at present has a permanent population of about 80,000. During the peak operations this figure would swell to 300,000 for four months, and then drop off. It is during that period it will need regional pro- tection and will need a massive system. The rest of my remarks I will `skip at this time and, knowing that they will be in'serted into the record, I `would `like to thank you for the opportunity to make these points' `before your `committee. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. You made some very practical points, and they have to be given `consideration, and they `shall be given consideration. Any `further questions? Mr. `McCarthy? Mr. MCCARTHY. I just want to thank you, `Mr. Wright. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. We will recognize our colleague, Representative Henry S. Reuss, of 1~Tisconsin. STATEMENT OP HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the oppo~unity to appear before the Public Works Committee in support of H.R. 15907, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. Your committee has labored long, hard, and successfully to gain a high priority for clean water PAGENO="0421" 413 programs among Federal programs. Both the Water Quality Act of 1965, Public Law 89-234, and the `Clean Water `Restoration Act of 1966, Pu:hlic Larw 89-753, evidence your committee's diligen'ce in seek- ing legislation to control water pollution. NEED FOR LEGISLATION The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968, under consideration here today, is a necessary addition to the 196'S and 1966 acts. `This bill fulfills the promise of the sizable, but quite necessary, au- thorizations placed on the statute books in the 1966 act. In the new sub- section 8(j) proposed there, the total cost of waste treatment plants and interceptor sewers would be ~nanced by bonds. Federal assistance to a waste treatment project would not be paid by a. lump sum grant as in the past, `but by a series of annual payments over the term of the `bond issue. These payments would cover the interest and `amortiza- tion of principal costs on the Federal portion of the project. By stretching Federal payments over `a period o'f years, the number of projects fully aided by Federal funds could be increased tenfold or `better. We all know the problem of obtaining appropriations `to match the increasing authorizations of the many progressive social measures which Congress enacted in the 89th Congress-not. only `to obtain clean water, but to better education, to `build housing `and other urban facili- ties as well. In water pollution control, however, the budget restraint has been particularly severe. The heart of the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 was `a sizatble stepup in the authorization for waste treatment facilities construction grants from $150 million in fiscal 1967 to $450 million in fiscal 1968 and to $700 million in fiscal 1969. Budgetary re- straint, however, `has caused `only $203 million of the $450 million fiscal 168 `authorization to `be appropriated, and only $225 `million of the $700 million fiscal 1969 `appropri'ation to be requested by the President. In short., the intent of this committee and of the Congress to see a threefold increase in waste treatment comistruotion this fiscal year and nearly `a fivefold increase next fiscal year, over the amount of construc- tion in fiscal 1967, has been nullified. The scarcity of Federal funds has created consternation in state water pollution control agencies and local sewerage commissions across the nation. Pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1965, high water quality standards have been set and approved in over half of the. 50 States. To meet these standards, new waste `treatment plants must be built, existing facilities must `be improved, thousands of miles of interceptor sewers must be laid. Yet the Federal funds promised by the 1966 `act to help finance this construction have not been forthcoming FACILITIES NEEDS IN WISCONSIN In my own State of Wisconsin, the backlog of $30 million of waste treatment facility construction `awaiting Federal assistance `when the 1966 act was passed has increased over the past year and a half to $45 million. That's right-at this time `the State of Wisconsin has applica- PAGENO="0422" 414 tions on file for $45 million of waste treatment facility construction eligible for Federal grants. Approximately $23 million of Federal waste treatment facility construction grant funds are `being requested to help finance this construction. Most Wisconsin projects are cur- rently eligible for 50 percent Federal grants, though some projects in regional planning areas are eligible for 55-percent grants. In this fiscal year, 1968, Wisconsin will receive approximately $4 million in Federsal waste treatment facility construction grant funds. One million dollars will be used to reimburse communities for past construction work, and $3 million of Federal funds to meet $23 million of applications for Federal money. The applications outstrip the Federal money nearly eight times. In order that the Federal grant money may go further, top priority Wisconsin projects will this year receive 20 percent Federal financing, instead of the 50 percent or in some cases 55 percent, Federal financing which would be paid if sufficient Federal funds were available. Even on this watered-down, 20-percent-payment basis, only one- third of the Wisconsin backlog will receive Federal funds this year. In Milwaukee, a city which has done an extraordinary job over the years of treating its sewage, the 11-year-old Federal waste treatment facility grant program has brought little relief to the overburdened Milwaukee taxpayer. In early years, Milwaukee qualified for only small grants because of the series of low ceilings on maximum grants. Since July 1, 1967, when the 1966 act became effective, Milwaukee has received only *a fraction of its Federal share because of small appropriations. From 1~56 to date, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage Com- mission has undertaken $128 million in waste treatment facility proj- ects eligible for Federal assistance. It has received less than $4 million in Federal assistance. Since July 1, 1967, Milwaukee has made appli- cation for $12 million worth of waste treatment construction projects. It is entitled to $6.6 million in Federal grants, 55 percent. It will receive $2.4 million, 20 percent. Some other amounts may later be reimbursed. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Wisconsin and Milwaukee figures which I have recited do not surprise your committee. For it is this very shortage o~f Federal funds which your committee labored to overcome 2 years ago, when it helped enact the unprecedented increase in construction grant authorizations in the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966. The plain fact is that the intent of your committee has been defeated by the budget squeeze. BILL A CREATIVE SOLUTION By finanejng the Federal share of waste treatment projects through bond issues, H.R. 15907 provides a creative solution for stretching scarce Federal dollars. The Secretary of the Interior has said that this new financing pro- gram will allow the Federal Government to commit the full $700 million authorization in fiscal 1969. I see ndthing wrong with financing capital expenditures through borrowing, though the long-term cost is, of course, higher. The total PAGENO="0423" 415 cost of waste treatment facilities was financed by borrowing before Federal grants were begun in 1956; and the local share is still being financed by borrowing in most cases. in 1965, the State of Wisconsin, moreover, instituted a similar aid program for helping localities finance waste treatment facilities. The bill would certainly boost antipollution efforts in Wisconsin. Assuming that Wisconsin would continue to receive the same share of funds under the new bill as it is presently receiving, it would receive $14 million in Federal assistance next year. This payment would go a substantial way in eliminating the $45 million backlog of applications. To live up to the commitment which it made to the localities in 1966, Congress should enact the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. It is both a moral and a practical necessity that it be enacted. Let me close by commenting briefly on two other aspects of this bilL First, I wholeheartedly support the Federal guarantee of the local share of bond issues financing waste treatment facilities and the Fed- eral payment of interest subsidies to reduce the net effective interest rate on the local share of such bond issues to a rate comparable to rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds. These provisions are found in section 2 of the bill. They assure that the new financing approach will not unduly flood the municipal bond market with new bond issues financing waste treatment facilities. I have watched the municipal bond market closely in recent years because of my interest in abolishing the municipal industrial develop- ment bond-the tax-exempt municipal bond used to finance private, profitmaking industrial plants and commercial facilities. Last year, the issuance of $1.3 billion of these bonds caused interest rates in the municipal market to climb to a then record 4.44 percent. These high interest rates added unduly to the cost of all public facilities financed by municipal bonds-schools, roads, hospitals, waste treatment facilities. With the great demand for more and better public facilities in this Nation financed by municipal bonds, it would be highly irre- sponsible for the Federal Government to encourage the issuance of an additional half billion dollars of tax-exempt bond issues in the next year to finance the construction of waste treatment facilities. The inevitable result would be higher cost for all public facilities. The enactment of this bill would have the opposite effect. It would actually take some of the pressure off the municipal bond market by federally guaranteeing some bonds which under the existing act would `be floated as municipal bonds. This would be a healthy development. Thus, I see the Federal guarantee and subsidy provisions as an essential feature of `this legislation. PREFINANCING CUTOFF RELAY Second, I should propose a technical amendment in section 2(c) of the bill. As the section is now written it would cut off as of July 1, 1968, the authority to reimburse localities which went ahead with PAGENO="0424" 416 the construction of waste treatment. plants before receiving a Federal grant. Any waste treatment facility which was not under construction by next July 1 would be no longer eligible for reimbursement. In Wisconsin all projects financed since June 30, 1966, have been proceeding under the reimbursement provision. Many projects have now been approved by the State of Wisconsin or are nearing approval under this provision. But in a substantial number of these projects, construction cannot as a practical matter be begun before July 1, 1968, the proposed cutoff date. The result will be that a number of Wisconsin projects which will not be reached for several years if a full Federal grant must be given, will have to be delayed. I am sure there are similar situations in other States. Thus, to clear the pipeline I propose that the cutoff date on reim- bursement be extended from July 1, 1968 to January 1, 1969. This would allow communities with advanced plans for waste treat- ment facilities to begin construction rather than suffer a 2- or 3-year delay. Mr. Chairman, in order not to lose the momentum given to the drive for clean water of the 89th Congress, the 90th Congress should enact this legislation. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. There are no furf~her witnesses for today, and the hearings are now adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 25, 1968.) PAGENO="0425" FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS-i 968 THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1968 HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, COMMIrrEE ON PtmrAo WORKS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :14 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The house Public Works Committee will please come to order. resume hearings on sundry bills as already recorded in the previous proceedings of the past 2 days, various proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We have had some excellent testimony and have gone into several important areas pertaining to water pollution. Substantial improve- ments and new efforts seem to be not only desirable but highly recommended to make more effective this large broad-scale national joint effort in water pollution. We have as our first witness this morning Mrs. Donald E. Clusen of Green Bay, Wis. Mrs. Clusen, I understand you are due to catch a plane around noon. Mrs. Clusen is the director of the U.S. League of Women Voters. Would you please proceed. I note you do have a prepared statement, so you may proceed at will, either read your statement or summarize, or depart from it as you wish. STATEMENT OP MRS. DONALD E. CLUSEN, DIRECTOR, LEM*UE OP WOME~N VOTERS OP THE UNITED STATES Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you, Congressman. We appreciate the oppor- tunity and the courtesies extended to us. I have a longer statement which I would like to request permission to have entered in the record, and I am going to summarize what is in this statement. Mr. BLATNIK. The full statement will appear at this point in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY Mns. DoNAri E. CLUSEN, DIREcToR, LEAGUE OF WoMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES I am Mrs. Donald E. Clusen of Green Bay, Wisconsin, an elected Director of the League of Women Voters of the United States and the Chairman of the Com- mittee on Water Resources. I am appearing this morning as the spokesman for (417) PAGENO="0426" 418 the more than 145,000 members organized in over 1200 local Leagues in the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Since my first opportunity to represent the League of Women Voters before this committee in 1968, our members-in their home communities and in their states-have continued their work for stronger laws, for better enforcement, and for additional financing to mitigate water problems. As many of you know, League stands are the outgrowth of study, discussion, and consensus by League members in local meetings. Leagues have agreed upon the principle of shared financial responsibility in water resources development. For this reason, the League of Women Voters prefers to see local governments make a strong effort to bear the cost of good waste management; and League members often back this preference by hard work to pass local sewer and treat- ment facility bond issues. We encourage state assistance to lower jurisdictions. Since 1960, we have steadily supported federal grants for sewage facility con- struction. League members are convinced that construction of municipal second- ary treatment plants must go on at an accelerated rate. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968 The League of Women Voters of the United States agrees with the aim of H.R. 15907 to provide a practical method of financing the federal share of treatment facility construction costs during the current period of financial stringency. We are well aware that parts of the bill are meeting strong opposition from spokes- men for local and state officials. We anticipate modifications by this committee. REASONS FOR SUPPORT OF H.R. 15907 Money is the main problem Meeting the cost of building and improving treatment plants far overshadows other difficulties in cutting down water pollution from city sewage. The Congress, guided by this committee, set $700 million as the amount the federal government needs to spend in fiscal 1969 to stimulate adequate invest- ment by state and local governments. Through the leadership of this committee, the incentive feature of the construction grant program was retained and re- emphasized. If the full autorization had been appropriated, the League would have favored continuing the present grant program unchanged. After all, the re- moval of the dollar ceiling and the higher percentage of project cost offered by the federal government in the Clean Water Restoration Act went into effect less than a year ago. But, in reality, these increases never materialized. Although 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have passed legislation authorizing a state share of 25 to 30 percent, the $203 million appropriated for the construction grant pro- gram has been so inadequate that the incentive offered by the Clean Water Resto- ration Act has been almost no incentive at all. Only states able to undertake pre- payment of the federal share in expectation of reimbursement can get leverage out of the promise implicit in the percentages of the Clean Water Restoration Act. State legislatures that met after the President's budget was sent to Congress in 1967 had scant reason to authorize appropriation of matching state funds. The state Leagues tell us of the bitter feeling among officials and citizens who worked for passage of state legislation authorizing state matching grants. When help is offered, expectations are raised; when help is snatched away, people can- not avoid feeling betrayed. Under present circumstances, we do not expect the Appropriations Committees to appropriate the $700 million authorized for fiscal 1969 or even the $450 mil- lion we wanted for the present fiscal year. The League, therefore, supports installment payments of the federal share. We do this in the hope that the Appro- priation Subcommittees will regard with favor- the relatively small additional amount (above the $225 million for the continuing grant program) needed to pay the 1969 installment of the federal share of principal andinterest under the contract system; the large amount of treatment facility construction that could be gen- erated if states utilize this contract method for their larger projects. success from standarf setting depends on construction Setting standards to meet the requirements of the Secretary of Interior does riot reduce pollution. The enforceable plan to achieve those standards w-ill riot PAGENO="0427" 419 in itself clean UI) the water. Only if the timetable in the enforceable plan is adhered to will standard setting bring about stream cleanup. To meet the time- table, interceptor sewers and treatment plants must be enlarged, improved, arid new ones constructed on schedule. If some sizeable physical improvements move forward rapidly, enforcement of standards will be encouraged. If standards are not enforced, the entire standard setting operation will be no more than a paper exercise. Metropolitan areas need. special attention . The League fully supports the provision in HR. 15907 that limits the contract method to all or parts of standard metropolitan areas or to large population centers. We favor earmarking the larger share of the authorized amount for contractual obligations with standard metropolitan statistical areas or large cities. The construction grant program was begun to help towns and small cities. States decide to whom the state allocation of federal construction grant funds shall go-and in what percentage of project costs. Some states spread their allo- cations thinly, small percentages to many recipients. Prior to 1966, the dollar ceiling on project grants made extremely large projects ineligible for aid pro- portionate to their cost. During the time the construction grant. program has been in effect, the disproportion between the income of some center cities and the needs they must fill has become glaringly clear. To bring about substantial reduction of the vast amounts of pollution many big cities discharge into their waterways, we favor channeling federal and state funds illto metropolitan areas for at least the three years of the present author- izations. Utility-type jinancing is desirable The League supports the requirement that the local public body having juris- diction over the treatment works be required, as a condition for contract aid, to establish a system of charges to repay the capital costs and pay the oper- ating and maintenance costs over the life of the project. We think businesslike financing, with service charges related to the cost of supplying the service, is desirable. We are glad to see that the requirement is left flexible, for we think the end may be achieved in different ways in different cities and states. Where domestic sewage service is included in water charges or in special millage rates on the tax bill, for example, it may be satisfactory to continue these methods of collecting service charges. User charges will grow more important as~ industries attach to public sewer lines in increasing numbers. We think adequate rates based on quality and quantity of sewage should be charged for waste water service, as charges are made in relation to services rendered by other utilities. Operation of treatment plants needs improvement League members' work for local and state bond issues makes them eager to have the large investment in treatment facilities produce the best possible results. We are well aware that many treatment plants have never done as well as expected and that many are overloaded. Our members have been dismayed to discover the low qualifications of operators in some expensive plants. The League, therefore, fully supports the provision in HR. 15907 that in order to make use of the contract method of federal aid, a state must develop a statewide plan to improve the efficiency of all constructed treatment works and must establish an effective statewide program for certification of treatment plant operators. We think an important function of grants-in-aid is to encourage the recipient level to upgrade performance. Estuary values merit study The League supports funding a comprehensive study of estuaries. `We are con- cerned about the values of these areas where salt and fresh water come together and about the values of the surrounding wetlands. Choices must be made between alternative uses. It is important that these be informed choices. The report of study outlined in this bill will help supply the information decision-makers will need. RESERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT H.R. 15907 Although the League will support H.R. 15907 for the reasons just given, we have reservations and questions about some of the proposed provisions and language in the bill. PAGENO="0428" 420 On advancing the cut-off for eligibility for reimbursement Our chief objection is to the change in the date which shortens the time during which construction must be started if a plant is to qualify for reimbursement through later federal repayment of the federal share of project cost. According to Sec. 8(c) of P.L. 660, as amended, the federal share of costs could be repaid for projects on which construction began between July 1, 1966 and July 1, 1971, and which met other requirements for federal assistance but were constructed without such assistance. Reimbursement was to come from later federal monies allotted to the state under the construction grant program. Reimbursement was to be in the amount the project would have received if it had been approved for a grant and adequate funds had been available. P.L. 660 says clearly that the provision for reimbursement of state and local funds used for such a project prior to July 1, 1971, should not be construed "~ * * to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States to provide funds to make or pay any grant for such a project." Nevertheless, to get control of the mounting pollution problem, it seemed desirable that states with financial resources undertake prepayment of the federal share. States that altered their laws to permit repayment on plants begun before mid-1971 were lavishly compli- mented for doing so. Prefinancing has become a major feature of the pollution abatement programs of some states. Now it is proposed to change the rules less than eighteen months after the Clean Water Restoration Act amendments became law. In recent years, great efforts have been made to devise programs and supply funds to encourage state support for pollution abatement. Cooperation between state and federal levels will not be advanced by this proposal to change the 1971 date to 1968 and thus narrow by more than half the period during which con- struction would be eligible for federal reimbursement if all other necessary condi- tions had been met. The League opposes shortening the period of eligibility for reimbursement. In view of the lead time necessary before treatment plant construction could be started and of the changes in state laws necessary before prepayment could be used, there must be many plants planned, with bonds approved in recent refer- enda, that will not be underway by July 1968 yet expected to have federal reim- bursement because they would be under construction before July 1971. To preserve harmony with the states and to strengthen state and local faith in the reliability of the federal construction grant program, we think such plants should receive the help for which they are eligible under the amendments made in 1966 by the Clean Water Restoration Act. On reimbursement under the contract method Although the League supported reimbursement in 1966, reasoning that states and localities able to move ahead on pollution abatement should be encouraged to do so without delay, we have always been uneasy about the assumption that a state could rely on eventually receiving a federal share equal to the money the state invested in pollution abatement facilities. Since periodic installment pay- ments of the federal share of capital and interest charges will be contractual ar- rangements, we assume that no question of prepayment will arise under the new method of stimulating waste treatment facility construction up to the level au- thorized by law. In the long run the contractual obligation should be a more reli- able guarantee of reimbursement than the provision in Sec. 8(c) of the present law. V On long~term effects of installment financing We do not want to say that a system of installment payments should become the procedure for many types of federal aid to states and local jurisdictions. Nor do we want to say that it should be the pattern used for federal support for water pollution abatement incentives after 1971. Contracts obligating the federal govern- ment to installment payments might limit the government's freedom of choice in spending is income, much as installment debts constrict the disposal income of an individual or family. The League has no position on long term financing by the contract method. We are in favor of usingit for funds now authorized, in order to break the construc- tion backlog building up because of uncertainly about federal aid. Further study and discussion of the effects of this method well before the time of consideration of post-1971 authorizations might give a better basis for long term decisions. We suggest that provision be made for such a study by the staff of this committee. PAGENO="0429" 421 On judging the adequacy of design and operating plan for treatment works As much as anyone else, League members want maximum efficiency for their investment. We are somewhat dubious, however, about the amount of reviewing that might be required under Sec. 2(g) (1) which provides that "p * * design and operating plan for treatment works shall be adequate, in the judgement of the Secretary, to insure the maximum efficiency in operation." Sec. 2(1) (d) requires approval of the plans by the responsible state agency. Is both federal and state review of plans for treatment plants contemplated? Or would the Secretary's staff develop criteria which the states would be required to use as yardsticks? With trained people in short supply, is dual review the best use of limited per- sonnel? Is it the best use of limited funds? Is some clarification of intent needed here? On income law liability on treatment facility bonds The League has no position on whether income from bonds for construction under the contract system should be taxable or tax free to the buyer. We know that exemption from income tax on federal borrowing is contrary to federal policy. We do not know whether making taxable that part of the bonds which constitutes the local share would be the first step toward destroying the tax exempt nature of other municipal bonds, as state and local officials suggest. Nor do we consider ourselves equipped to foresee the effect federally guaranteed bonds might have on the municipal bond market under either circumstance. Need tawabiiity vs. tan ewemption as an issue of public policy be coupled with this authorization of a program to stimulate state and local investment in the water pollution control program? What proportion of local governments will be able to assume the federal as well as the local share of bonded indebtedness for sewage facilities along with their other obligations? Fortunately, all but three state legislatures meet in the odd-numbered years. They will soon be able to consider changes in state statutes to facilitate use of the contract method of sewage facility financing by local bodies. LAKE, MINE, AND OIL POLLUTION CONTROL BILLS The League agrees with the objectives of 5. 2700 and HR. 14000 to improve U.S. ability to overcome pollution in lakes and in streams affected by acid mine drainage. The League also agrees with the objectives of HR. 15906, H.R. 15928, H.R. 16015, H.R. 16163, HR. 14000, and 5. 2760 to strengthen the oil pollution control program and include it as part of the overall federal water pollution control program. To the list of grants and contracts authorized by the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act the League supports adding grants for research and develop- ment on (a) prevention, removal, and control of natural and man-made pollu- tion in small lakes and (b) feasible and practical techniques of eliminating or controlling acid or other mine water pollution. The League supports rewording of the definition of discharge to eliminate * * * grossly negligent or willful * * ~" and to include all ways in which oil and related materials can get into the water in quantity. The League Supports making owners and operators of shore installations re- sponsible, along with owners and operators of all vessels, for amelioration of the effects of discharged oil of any kind or in any form. REASONS FOR SUPPORT Early in 1967, local Leagues reported on their study of financial incentives to industry to abate water I)Ollution. These reports said clearly and strongly that League members think control of wastes is one of the costs of doing business. Therefore, we maintain that all who discharge oil and similar wastes should he responsible for full costs of cleanup. League members also expressed enthusiasm for federal support of research for new and effective ways of halting pollution. League in many states are well aware of how vulnerable lakes are to eutrophication. While certain pro- tective steps that can be taken are well known, understanding of the enrich- ment process is inadequate. Improvement of methods for nutrient removal is expected to require large scale demonstration projects. While continued fundamental and applied research on acid mine drainage will undoubtedly be needed, the time seems to have come for demonstration PAGENO="0430" 422 projects that encompass a whole watershed. Leagues that have repeatedly sup- ported stronger state `controls to keep `acid mine drainage from spreading to clean streams know that the largest part of the problem is checking seepage fi om abandoned and inoperatn e mines on privately owned land RESERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS On timeliness of authorization I'ollution control programs already in effect are suffering from funding ac- knowledged to be inadequate in the reports of the Appropriation Comnilttees. Does it seem possible that funds can be obtained for new pollution control pro- grams, however worthwhile their aims? H.R. 15907, in proposals for revision of Sections 5 and 6 of P.L. 660, includes research and demonstration projects for lake and acid mine water pollution in the $65 million authorization for research, demonstration, investigations, train- ing, and information. This amount is the same as that now authorized for fiscal year 1969. 5. 2760 and H.R. 14000, however, propose to authorize $15 million to carry out one or more acid mine drainage projects to demonstrate engineering and economic feasibility of various abatement techniques when applied on a w-atershed or drainage basin scale. The League stand has always been that laws should be applied. Legislation lulls the public into a false sense that something has been accomplished. Public attention turns elsewhere. We question whether funds for a program should be authorized if they will not be appropriated in the near future. The same question does not arise in connection with the proposal in H.R. 15906, S. 2760, and similar bills that authorize a revolving fund to pay for cleanup of oil spills if the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation fails to re- move discharged oil immediately. Creation of the funds is coupled with the pro- visions through which money expended from it will be recovered from those caus- ing the pollution. On the percentage of the federal share A requirement that the state pay not less than 25 percent of actual costs of acid mine drainage projects is made a prerequisite for federal participation, according to S. 2760, and H.R. 14000. The League is glad to see a requirement for state funds included in the proposal. We do not oppose the 75/25 ratio for a demonstration project. However, when the League of Women Voters was developing its support for better coordination at the federal level, League members deplored the differences in proportion of contributions and in required repayment under programs handled by different federal agencies. "Shopping around" for the maximum amount of aid seemed undesirable to League members because (a) it encourages delay in solving the problem for which federal aid is sought and (b) it encourages choosing the solution for which most financial aid can be obtained. League members became convinced that variations in the amount of aid which can be offered under differ- ent programs distorted decision-making, reduced maximum benefits from the federal investment, and are one factor in heightened inter-agency competition. In recent years we have seen some tendency to limit federal aid to 50 percent in a number of water programs, except where supplementation was provided for areas of great economic distress. Housing and Urban Development Act authorized grants to local public bodies to finance up to 50 percent of the cost of basic public water and sewer facilities (though not "treatment works" as defined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). For rural communities, the Rural Water and Sanitations Facilities Act. offered up to 50 percent of construction, land easement, rights of way, and water rights costs necessary for construction and operation of rural water supply and sanitation systems. The Public Works and Economic Development Act also authorized 50 percent aid for needed public works in economically distressed areas, plus supplementation. The League would like to see this 50 percent line held as demonstration and pilot operations move into full national programs. THE ~~WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1OG8~~ Mrs. Cr~usEN. Turning first to the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968, the League of Women Voters of the United States agrees with the aim of H.IR. 15907 to provide a practical method of financing the PAGENO="0431" 423 Federal share of treatment facility construction costs during the cur- rent period of financial stringency. `We are well aware that parts of the bill are meeting strong opposition from spokesmen for local and State officials. We anticipate modification by this committee. Our reasons for support of H.R. 15907 are as follows: MONEY THE MAIN PROBLEM Money is the main problem. Meeting the cost of building and im- proving treatment plants far overshadows other difficulties in cutting down water pollution from city sewage. If the full authorization had been appropriated, the league would have favored continuing the present grant program unchanged. After all, the removal of the dollar ceiling and the higher percentage of project cost offered by the Federal bovernment in the Clean Water Restoration Act went into effect less than a year ago. But, in reality, these increases never materialized. Although ~23 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have passed legislation authorizing a State share of 25 to 30 percent, the $203 million appro- priated for the construction grant program has been so inadequate that the incentive offered by the Clean `Water Restoration Act has been almost no incentive at all. Under present circumstances, we do not expect the Appropriations Committees to appropriate the $700 million authorized for fiscal 1969 or even the $450 million we wanted for the present fiscal year. The league, therefore, supports installment payments of the Federal share. We do this in the hope that the Appropriation Subcommittee will re- gard with favor upon the relatively small additional amount, above the $225 million for the continuing grant program, needed to pay the 1969 installment of the Federal share of principal and interest under the contract system; and the large amount of treatment facility construction that could be generated if States utilize this contract method for their larger projects. CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY TO STANDARDS ACHIEVEMENT We think success from standard setting depends on construction. Only if the timetable in an enforceable plan is adhered to will stand- ard setting bring about stream cleanup. To meet the timetable, inter- ceptor sewers and treatment plants must be enlarged, improved, and new ones constructed on schedule. If some sizable physical improve- ments move forward rapidly, enforcement of standards will be en- couraged. If standards are not enforced, the entire standard settiiig operation will be no more than a paper exercise. POPULATION-SMSA REQUIREMENT Secondly, the league fully supports the provision in H.R. 15907 that limits the contract method to all or parts of standard metropolitan areas or to large population centers. The construction grant program was begun to help towns and small cities. States decide to whom the State allocation of Federal construc- tion grant funds shall go-and in what percentage of project costs. Some States spread their allocations thinly, small percentages to many recipients. Prior to 1966, the dollar ceiling on project grants made ex- PAGENO="0432" 424 treinely large projects ineligible for aid proportionate to their cost. During the time the construction grant program has been in effect, the disproportion between the income of some center cities and the needs they must fill has become glaringly clear. To bring about substantial reduction of the vast amounts of pollu- tion many big cities discharge into their waterways, we favor chan- neling Federal and State funds into metropolitan areas for at least the 3 years of the present authorizations. USER CHARGES Third, the league supports the requirement that the local public body having jurisdiction over the treatment works be required, as a condition for contract aid, to establish a system of charges to repay the capital costs and pay the operating and maintenance costs over the life of the project. We think businesslike financing, with service charges related to the cost of supplying the service, is desirable. We are glad to see that the requirement is left flexible, for we think the end may be achieved in different ways in different cities and States. Where domestic sewage service is included in water charges or in special millage rates on the tax bill, for example, it may be satisfactory to continue these methods of collecting service charges. DESIGN AND OPERATION OF PLANTS-OPERATOR CERTIFICATION Fourth, we are well aware that many treatment plants have never done as well as expected and that many are overloaded. Our members have been dismayed to discover the low qualifications of operators in some expensive plants. The league, therefore, fully supports the pro- vision in IE[.IR. 15907 that in order to make use of the contract method of Federal aid, a State must develop a statewide plan to improve the efficiency of all constructed treatment works and must establish an effective statewide program for certification of treatment plant oper- ators. We think an important function of grants-in-aid is to en- courage the recipient level to upgrade performance. ESTUARY STUDY Lastly, the league supports funding a comprehensive study of estuaries. We are concerned about the values of these areas where salt and fresh water come together and about the values of the surround- ing wetlands. Choices must be made between alternative uses. It is important that these be informed choices. The report of study out- lined in this bill will help supply the information decisionmakers will need. RESERVATIONS Although the league will support H.R. 15907 for the reasons just given, we have reservations and questions about some of the proposed provisions and language in the bill. PREFINANCING CUTOFF First of all, our chief objection is to the change in the date which shortens the time during which construction must be started if a plant PAGENO="0433" 425 is to qualify for reimbursement through later Federal repayment of the Federal share of project cost. According to Public Law 660, the Federal share of costs could be repaid for projectson which construc- tion began between July 1, 1966, and July 1, 1971, and which met other requirements for Federal assistance but were constructed with- out such assistance. WTe think it unwise to change the rules less than 18 months after the Clean Water Restoration Act amendments became law. In recent years, great efforts have been made to devise programs and supply funds to encourage State support for pollution abatement. Cooperation between State and Federal levels will not be advanced by this proposal to change the 1971 date to 1968 and thus narrow by more than half the period during which construction would be eligible for Federal reimbursement if all other necessary conditions had been met. The league opposes shortening the period of eligibility for reim- bursement. In view of the leadtime necessary before treatment plant construction could be started and of the changes in State laws neces- sary before prepayment could be used, there must be many plants planned, with bonds approved in recent referendums, that will not be underway by July 1968 yet expected to have Federal reimbursement because they would be under construction before July 1971. To pre- serve harmony with the States and to strengthen State and local faith in the reliability of the Federal construction grant program, we think such plants should receive the help for which they are eligible under the amendments made in 1966 by the Clean Water Restoration Act. LEAGUE NOT COMMITTED TO LONG-TEEM CONTRACTS AS PATTERN OF FEDERAL FINANCING We do not want to say that a system of installment payments should become the procedure for many types of Federal aid to States and local jurisdictions. Nor do we want to say that it should be the pattern used for Federal support for water pollution abatement incentives after 1971. Contracts obligating the Federal Government to install- ment payments might limit the Government's freedom of choice in spending its income, much as installment debts constrict the disposal income of an individual or family. The league has no position on long-term financing by the contract method. We are in favor of using it for funds now authorized, in order to break the construction backlog building up because of uncer- tainty about Federal aid. Further study and discussion of the effects of this method well before the time of consideration of post-1971 authorizations might give a better basis for long-term decisions. We suggest that provision be made for such a study by the staff of this committee. TWO LEVEL APPROVAL OF PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION PLANS As much as anyone else, league members want maximum efficiency for their investment. We are somewhat dubious, however, about the amount of reviewing that might be required under section 2(g) (1) which provides that "~ ~ * design and operating plan for treatment 04-37G---GS------2S PAGENO="0434" 426 works shall be adequate, in the judgment of the Secretary, to insure the maximum efficiency in operation." Section 2(f) (d) requires ap- proval of the plans by the responsible State agency. Is both Federal and State review of plans for treatment plants contemplated? Or would the Secretary's staff develop criteria which the States would be required to use as yardsticks? With trained people in short supply, is dual review the best use of limited personnel? Is is the best use of limited funds? Is some clarification of intent needed here? NO POSITION ON TAXABLE STATUS OF BONDS The league has no position on whether income from bonds for con- struction under the contract system should be taxable or tax free to the buyer. There are two questions: Need taxability versus tax exemption as an issue of public policy be coupled with this authorization of a program *to stimulate State and local investment in the water pollution control program? What proportion of local governments will be able to as- sume the Federal as well as the local share of bonded indebtedness for sewage facilities along with their other obligations? LAKE-MINE-OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LEGISLATION Turning now to the lake, mine, and oil pollution control bills, the league agrees with the objectives of 5. 2760 and H.R. 14000 to improve U.S. ability to overcome pollution in lakes and in streams affected by acid mine drainage. The league also agrees with the objectives of H.R. 15906, H.R. 15928, H.R. 16015, 11.11. 16163, I-LR. 14000, and 5. 2760 to strengthen the oil pollution control program and include it as part of the overall Federal water pollution control program. To the list of grants and contracts authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the league supports adding grants for research and development on (a) prevention, removal, and control of natural and man-made pollution in small lakes and (b) feasible and practical techniques of eliminating or controlling acid or other mine water pollution. The league supports rewording of the definition of discharge to eliminate ~* * * grossly negligent or willful * * ~ and to include all ways in which oil and related materials can get into the water in quantity. The league supports making owners and operators of shore installa- tions responsible, along with owners and operators of all vessels, for amelioration of the effects of discharged oil of any kind or in any form. Early in 1967, local leagues reported on their study of financial in- cent~ves to industry to abate water pollution. These reports said clearly and strongly that league members think control of wastes is one of the costs of doing business. Therefore, we maintain that all who discharge oil and similar wastes should be responsible for full costs of cleaimp. League members also expressed enthusiasm for Federal support of research for new and effective ways of halting pollution. Leagues in many States are well aware of how vulnerable lakes are to eutrophica- tion. While certain protective steps that can be taken are well known, PAGENO="0435" 427 understanding of the enrichment process is inadequate. Improvement of methods for nutrient removal is expected to require large-scale demonstration projects. `While continued fundamental and applied research on acid mine drainage will undoubtedly be needed, the time seems to have come for demonstration projects that encompass a whole watershed. Leagues that have repeatedly supported stronger State controls to keep acid mine drainage from spreading to clean streams know that the largest part of the problem is checking seepage from abandoned and inopera- tive mines on privately owned land. On these bills also we have some reservations and questions. DOUBTS CONCERNING ADEQUATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR NEW PROGRAMS Pollution control programs already in effect are suffering from funding acknowledged to be inadequate in the reports of the Appro- priation Committees. Does it seem possible that funds can be obtained for new pollution control programs, however worthwhile their aims? H.R. 15907, in proposals for revision of sections 5 and 6 of Public Law 660, includes research and demonstration projects for lake and acid mine water pollution in the $65 million authorization for research, demonstration, investigations, training, and information. This amount is the same as that now authorized for fiscal year 1969. 5. 2760 and III.R. 14000, however, propose to authorize $15 million to carry out one or more acid mine drainage projects to demonstrate engineering and economic feasibility of various abatement techniques when applied on a watershed or drainage basin scale. The league stand has always been that laws should be applied. Legis- lation hills the public into a false sense that something has been accom- plished. Public attention turns elsewhere. V~Te question whether funds for a program should be authorized if they will not be appropriated in the near future. REVOLVING FUND FOR OIL AND HAzARDOUS SUBSTANCE CLEANUP The same question does not arise in connection with the proposal in H.R. 15906, S. 2760, and similar bills that authorize a revolving fund to pay for cleanup of oil spills if the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation fails to remove discharged oil immediately. Crea- tion of the fund is coupled with the provisions through which money expended from it will be recovered from those causing the pollution. FEDERAL SHARE OF MINE AREA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Our second concern relates to the percentage of the Federal share. A requirement that the State pay not less than 25 percent of actual costs of acid mine drainage projects is made a prerequisite for Federal participation, according to S. 2760, and H.R. 14000. The league is glad to see a requirement for State funds included in the proposal. We do not oppose the 75 to 25 ratio for a demonstration project. However, when the League of Women Voters was developing its support for better coordination at the Federal level, league members deplored the differences in proportion of contributions and in required PAGENO="0436" 428 repayment under programs handled by different Federal agencies. "Shopping around" for the maximum amount of aid seemed undesir- able to league members because (a) it encourages delay in solving the problem for which Federal aid is sought and (b) it encourages choos- ing the solution for which most financial aid can be obtained. League members became convinced that variations in the amount of aid which can be offered under different programs distorted decisiomunaking, re- duced maximum benefits from the Federal investment, and are one factor in heightened interagency competition. In recent years we have seen some tendency to limit Federal aid to 50 percent in a number of water programs, except where supplemen- tation was provided for areas of great economic distress. Housing and Urban Development Act authorized public water and sewer facilities. For rural communities, the Rural Water and Sanitations Facilities Act offered up to 50 percent of construction, land easement, rights-of- way, and water rights costs necessary for construction and operation of rural water supply and sanitation systems. The Public Works and Economic Development Act also authorized 50-percent aid for needed public works in economically distressed areas, plus supplementation. The league would like to see this 50-percent line held as demonstra- tion and pilot operations move into full national programs. I think that is the gist of what we wish to say to you today, and we do appreciate the opportunity to do it and the leadership of this committee. If there is anything that you would like for me to respond to, I would be glad to do so. Mr. BLATNIK. I would like to compliment you and your staff of as- sociates working with you for a very orderly and logical statement and the very fine manner of presentation you made this morning. You submit several recommendations on behalf of the League of Women Voters of the United States. I am also frankly relieved that you do not attempt to know all the answers and as arbitrary as some witnesses have been, with all respect to their deep conviction and sincerity. In addition to recommendations you call attention to certain areas where you are not taking particular decision one way or the other. But you do suggest they require more study by the staff. You raise some very thoughtful and very legitimate questions that ought to be looked into a little more thoroughly by the staff which we intend to do before we come up with the final judgment and have it written into legislative language. I do not have any further questions. Any questions from members of the committee, any comments? Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLATJSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I want to welcome my almost namesake before this committee. I think that she has misspelled her name. And I am saying that facetiously? But once again, Mrs. Clusen, you have given to the committee a clear demonstration of your independent thinking on behalf of the Leao~ue of Women Voters. I am assuming that all of these recoin- rnen~lations have been filtered up upon the study groups that the league has around the country. PAGENO="0437" 429 Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes. These are at least all based upon broad gen- eral discussions to which we have discussed and to which we apply the specific legislation in determining whether it follows within the criteria which they have established for us through discussion, yes. Mr. CLKUSEN. I am particularly impressed, Mr. Chairman, with the sensitivity and the understanding that is demonstrated in this testimony by the witness in recognizing the problems that we on this committee face as far as the fiscal position. Again it demonstrates the fact that you are presenting something that is reasonable, something that is realistic. And again you have made a great contribution to the work that we are trying to carry on in finding the right answer, hopefully and in realistic terms, one that can go forward with an understanding by people throughout the country to realize certainly that the implementation of a law has as much value as just the passage of the law. So once again we are deeply indebted to you, Mrs. Ciusen. Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman Denney. Mr. DENNEY. Mrs. Clusen, I want to add my compliments to the other committee members for the work the league has done on this program. As you so aptly stated, this is a real problem in the United States. And I think we must stand up and face this problem. I want also to tell you that out of my State of Nebraska, we rely very heavily upon the Nebraska League of Women Voters, because they study these problems and they realize the legislative process. RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT The only problem that concerns me is the recommendations made on page 4: To bring about substantial reduction of the vast amounts of pollution many big cities discharge into their waterways, we favor channeling Federal and State funds into metropolitan areas for at least the three years of the present a iithorizatjorjs. I recognize the original Federal water pollution control bill was aimed to help the small cities and the rural areas, and possibly it is the thought of the league that we should balance oimt the scale. But I still -feel we are making tremendous progress in the rural areas and in our long-range program that we are relieving some of the metropolitan areas of their impacted areas, and we will probably have to continue to take citizens out in the rural areas. So would you have any objection if we continued the grant-in-aid programs in the rural areas and try and work out something more in line with the needs of the big cities at this time? Mrs. CLUSEN. Decidedly not. I think this is the very reason why we support this part of it, is because we think it does balance out as a counterpart. And is it not also within the scope of the legislation for the com- mittee in some way to define metropolitan areas almost in any way it desires? Mr. DENNEY. It defines metropolitan areas 125,000. We have two cities in our State that reach that. We are vitally concerned about the PAGENO="0438" 430 other program. `We have done a tremendous job out there in sewage treatment plants, and we do not want to stop the program. Mrs. CLUSEN. We certainly agree with you. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNEY. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Following that line of comment, there is one thing that we in the committee are very much concerned about, and I think many Members of Congress have expressed their concern over what I think are dangerous population trends toward urbanization in the country. And we feel there might be an opportunity through this legislation to reverse a part of this trend. And that is the one area of your testimony that I might have a little bit concern about, and that is whether or not we should be advancing the opportunity for just the urban areas to improve their sewage treatment works, possibly at the expense of the rural areas. And if I drew the trends for the next decade in this country somewhere along the line, we have got to move away from the megalopolis trends, and hopefully redistribute the population throughout the country, because we know we have 70 pci- cent of the people living on 1 percent of the land. This is not a very good balance by any standard. `Would you see any reason why we should not take whatever opportunities we might have legislatively, such as this vehicle, to improve the ability of small communities to have the necessary facilities-and this of course re- quires funding-in oider to permit them to accommodate industry, hopefully to decentralize iart of this country? Mrs. CLUSEN. I certainly do agree with your basic philosophy. And I am very interested in your statement that this could perhaps be used as a~ method of decentralization. I confess that we had not thought of it. Of course you know the league would have preferred the grants-in- aid program as it was if full appropriation could have been done. And I think this would have done exactly what you would most like to see done in rural and urban areas. But failing that, it seems to us that under this method this might be a way of balancing out what has happened in the grants-in-aid program. But certainly we are in agreement with your philosophy about this. Certainly in defining what areas are covered by this, we know the committee will exercise its best judgment on what is needed most. Thank you. * Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mrs. Clusen. Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Next we have a representative from the National Association of Counties, Mr. Bill Basford of Jacksonville, Fla., accom- panied by our good friend C. D. Ward, executive director, from the `Washington office. Mr. `Ward, would you want to give any preliminaries? STATEMENT OP WILLIAM BASPORD, JACKSONVILLE, PLA., NA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OP COUNTIES, ACCOMPANIED BY C. B. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. WARD. My name is C. D. Ward, and I am general counsel for the National Association of Counties. I am accompanied by our wit- PAGENO="0439" 431 ness, Commissioner Bill Basford of Duval County. Mr. Basford has the distinction of holding two offices at the same time'which perhaps he can articulate before you at this time. Mr. BASFORD. I am very, very pleased to have t:his opportunity to be here on something that is very, very near and dear to me. I have been wrestling with it on the local level for quite some time. I was a member of the legislature in 1963 and we had a Select Coin- mittee on Water Resources to make a study in regard to some of the very things that are facing you right now. We found in Florida approximately 16 million gallons per day of raw human waste was being dumped into our rivers and streams. This did not take into account industrial waste and did not account for the farm problem or poisons or pesticides. The shocking thing was that here I was, house member from Duval County, and found that out of `this 16 million gallons, Jacksonville was dumping 15.2 million gallons a day of this total amount from our municipality. This followed through the next. term, I was on the con- servation committee again, and I found the problem of such a magni- * tude that I ran for county commissioner then. And I know Mr. Clan- sen understands my problem as a former commissioner himself. We have attacked this on our local level and I want you to know that. my message includes that, that we too are aware and are working hard on this and we are participating. Duval County itself has undertaken a project which over tile next 5 or 10 years, out of local funds, will probably equal tile total amount of your annual appropriation from Congress to the Water Pollution Control Administration. So w-e are all trying to become partners in this thing, and we are very, very delighted that the programs that you present to us on the basis of self-help, encouraging self -help. But you go into a community such as ours, which exceeds a half mil- lion people, and I found as county commissioner that we have over 109 independent water and sewer systems throughoutour community, not counting the Jacksonville municipal system. And we faced some- thing not too long back, we found out we had no regulatory powers over rates, water standards, and this thing which really gave the com- mission an effective opportunity to protect* the public and to have some control. So we went to the legislature for a special act to give us this power, set up health standards, and to spend moneys to regulate, and this `sort of thing. Well, immediately our companies started raising their rates in anticipation of future control. Many of them were bought up by outside interests. I read with some alarm that the president of a large national and international utility company, which is one of the owners in our area, the president made a speech in which he said very boast- fully, encouraging apparently businessmen to go into communities and buy these systems, that the profit was not in operating the system but the profit was in selling them back to municipalities at future larger dollars, particularly after they had been able to inflate their rate base and cost of replacement though engineering reports and this sort of thing. PAGENO="0440" 432 Jacksonville and Duval County, and I will explain that, we have consolidated our governments recently. And I will be a councilman in the new consolidated government and it is going to be faced with purchasing these antiquated, worn-out smaller systems at very, very big dollars in the near future. This is where you have been so helpful to us because when we under- took our new program a couple of years ago, we had been able to receive some assistance from the Federal Government to help us go. We have a master sewer program where our county and city had cooperated through the same engineers to bring about something, and so now we are truthfully undertaking the purpose and the principle and the philosophy behind this act which you have previously passed and are now considering amendments. There are some communities which do not have this problem. Con- gressman Cramer's home community of Pinellas, back in 1927 started working on this. And now they have a completely municipally owned county-wide water and sewer system. I was using your name, Congressman Cramer. I hope you do not mind. I said your community started back in 1927 and 1928 working on this municipal county water and sewer countywide system. Today, my mission is to represent the National Association of Counties, and I am not officially speaking for the League of Cities at this time. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to have the opportunity of welcoming Bill Basford before the committee. But, as he does in his business, I was called to an urgent telephone call. I do want to welcome you before the committee. (Mr. Edmondson assumes the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. I understood you were appearing. I am particularly proud that you are appearing on behalf of the National Association of Counties. Having been a county attorney myself for a couple of years, I will be very much interested in what you have to say. Mr. BASFORD. I am sure you were on the phone at the time. I was trying to point out that I was proud that in my statement that your country was one that undertook to meet this problem many years ago, and it worked along on it, and I sure wish Duval had been able to pay for its systems at the dollar values that your community did. I am sure while you were county attorney you were involved in this actively and contributed very much to it. I am very happy about that. Our statement is several pages long, but the first two or three pages are somewhat window dressing, and to also point out some programs we have undertaken in cooperation with our membership counties of over 3,000 throughout the country. If you like, I will skip over to the second paragraph on page 3 and cover it from there. (The prepared statement of Mr. Basford follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM BASFORD, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA; CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is William Basford, County Commissioner, Duval County, Florida. I am Chairman of the National Associa- tion of Counties, Committee on Air and Water Pollution Control, and represent our nation's 3,000 county government's here today. PAGENO="0441" 433 This Committee is, of course, very familiar with the increasing role of county government in water pollution control. We have, in the past advised this Com- mittee on the special activities of our Association in trying to encourage and assist counties to initiate, improve or expand their own water pollution control programs. In many areas, counties are in the forefront of new developments in water pollution control. This is evidenced by the fact that over half of the grants made in the first seven months of 1967 for the development of advanced water treat- ment methods were made to county governments. Because sewage collection and treatment is recognized as an area-wide problem which should be solved on an area-wide basis, the National Association of Coun- ties (NACO) has developed a water pollution control program designed to help counties across the nation undertake effective sewage collection and treatment programs. The project funded in part by a demonstration grant from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration involved the publication of a Guide for Public Officials called A Community Action Program for Water Pollution Control. The Guide explains how counties can help in the fight against water pollution. Its primary purpose is to show counties, which are presently hamstrung by inadequate state legislative authority, how to secure enabling legislation which will permit them to provide sewage collection and treatment services. The Guide also shows counties how they can plan and develop countrywide programs, how to finance them, where to turn for financial and technical assistance, and how to secure community support for sewage treatment programs. During the past two years NACO has been conducting a series of state clean water institutes in cooperation with state associations of counties and interested state organizations to stimulate state action programs for water pollution control and to help the county governments in their respective states secure the necessary enabling legislation which will permit them to provide sewage treatment services and facilities. Many of our state clean water institutes led to the eventual passage of state enabling legislation permitting all of the county governments to provide sewage treatment facilities in all areas of the county requiring service. The Association of Oregon Counties secured passage of a County Service District Law enabling counties to provide sewage collection services in areas outside cities. The Mary- land Legislature passed a bill authorizing the governing board of each county in the state to develop comprehensive plans for water supply and sewerage systems throughout the county, including areas within municipalities. This bill gives counties full responsibility for providing sewage collection and treatment facil- ities in all areas requiring service and many projects are under way. To date, NACO has conducted clean water institutes in 35 states and will con- clude the project by July 1 of this year. We envision the continued expansion of county programs for sewage treatment and water pollution control and look for- ward to more counties in more states participating in programs and projects sup- ported by F.W.P.C.A. and related grant projects. We feel that our Association's concern for and commitment to an effective na- tionwide water pollution control effort is very evident. It is therefore particularly difficult for us to question any approach which would provide us with additional financial assistance to combat water pollution. However, it is not possible for us to endorse the financing proposal contained in H.R. 15907. The heart of the issue is that such action could establish a principle and a precedent which would jeopardize the tax exempt feature of state and local government bonds. If these bonds could retain their tax exempt feature, it would be most likely that we could endorse the proposal. We appreciate the well-intentioned motivation for this proposal and we cer- tainly do not see it as an effort on the part of any of the authors to jeopardize or attack the exemption. Rather we see it as an attempt, through new financial ar- rangements to meet what is indeed a very severe crisis. However, we are com- pelled to spell out our reservations. In effect what the proposal is doing is requiring the local governments to assume not only their share of the bonded indebtednes~ for water pollution control facilities, but that of the Federal Gov- ernment as well. If counties had the same ability to raise their debt limitation as does the Federal Government, one aspect of the problem would not be so diffi- cult. Unfortunately, not only must counties get approval from the state to raise often unrealistically debt limits, but sometimes a state constitutional amendment is required. Sinëe we must operate under this restricted financial limitation we are faced with thes problem of assigning priorities to the many pressing needs of our counties. Water pollution control, of course, ranks among the most press- PAGENO="0442" 434 lug needs in thousands of areas. However, the suggested procedure would pre- (lude many counties from proceeding to deal with other problems within the (ollimunity. They would be lacking in the necessary debt authority for other pub- lic purpose projects. One could say that the option is still w'ith the county and if they did not desire to assign such a high priority to water pollution control, they need not do so. However, by virtue of the fact that some local governments will be able to receive straight grants, ($225 million requested for fiscal 1969), such communities won't be confronted with such a problem, while others will. Perhaps the most vexing problem is the overall effect upon the tax exempt fea- ture of our bonds. It is our contention the exemption is a constitutional one and not statutorily granted. Consequently, the question is raised as to whether local governments can waive the constitutional right of the holder of a state and local government bond to receive the interest from the bond, exempt from Federal taxa- tion. If we accept an affirmative answer to that question, then we could find our- ~elves disavowing our position as to the constitutional exemption! There are other problems connected with the proposal which we understand will be brought out in other testimony. We do not wish to appear to be entirely negative and would now like to turn to what we propose as alternatives. We believe there are two approaches that this Committee should consider in order to meet local government's serious difficulties with the present legisla- tion. Either approach, would, we think, remove the grave difficulties we have with the; bill. The first approach would provide that the Secretary's contract authority would be limited to the federal financial share of the project. The present bill, for example, provides that if a water pollution control facility is to cost $1,000,000, and the Federal grant is to be 30%, the entire $1,000,000 is secured by the sale of federally-guaranteed taxable bonds issued by the state or local government. TheFederal Government will pay the principal and interest on $300,000 plus the subsidy to the local government to compensate for the higher interest rates necessary because the issue is not tax exempt. Our proposal would require state or local governments to issue only $300,000 in federally-guaranteed, taxable bonds, the entire amount of principal and inter- est to be paid by the Federal Government. In effect the state or local govern- ment would be a conduit for the Federal Government. However, for bookkeeping purposes, the bonded indebtedness would be that of the state and local govern- ment. Under this proposal, the state or local government would be free to raise its own share of the project cost, i.e. $700,000, any way they choose, most likely, of course, by issuing their regular tax exempt bonds. There would be no need for the Federal Government to subsidize the interest rates of the local government share. The principal, and the lower interest rates on tax exempt bonds in the amount of $700,000 would be the obligations of the local government. The full faith and credit of the local government would guarantee this portion of the bond. We believe this proposal would accomplish everything the Administration has advocated. It would guarantee an increased effort by both federal and local government in the vital area of water pollution control, it would not add to the national debt, and the Federal Government would not be guaranteeing tax exempt bonds. Our second alternative proposal is made with the realization of this nation's serious fiscal problems, but with the fervent hope that soon it would be possible for Congress to consider it. REVENUE BOND FINANCING We would propose that a national fund be created by the Federal Government and that monies for this fund be obtained by the issuance of a new type of Treasury obligation that might be called a Federal Revenue Bond. These bonds would be secured by the revenue from two sources. The first, and initially by far the largest, source would be the annual congressional appropriation from Con- gress. The second revenue source would be the annual principal and interest payments by cities, counties, and states into the fund. BORROWING BY CONTRACT A city or county that by its own volition (or as the result of a court order) desiring to build a sewerage treatment plant would then be able to borrow the PAGENO="0443" 435 total amount needed for the plant from this fund. In exchange, the city or county would enter into a contract with the fund agreeing to pay back the principal and interest on the amount they borrowed. This is based on the assumption that the Federal Government, would continue to put up a portion of the money as its part of the national obligation to clean up streams. In effect, we are substituting direct annual appropriations for a new type of revenue bond financing. ADVANTAGE5 OF THE PLAN 1. From the point of view of the Treasury, this type of bond financing should be preferable to the present arrangement. Bonds sold by the Federal Government to provide funds for the program would be ta~rable by the Federal Government. This would, of course, also include the portion of the funds repayable by the city or county. 2. This plan would also remove a very great strain on local government financ- ing in the municipal bond market. As you know, our cities, counties, and states are going increasingly to the municipal bond market for schools, airports, and a host of public purposes. This proposal would tend to remove a very significant portion of these demands from th~ municipal bond market which is already greatly strained. 3. From the point of view of localities, we feel that in many places this would be a giant step forward because it would apparently bypass state and local restrictions in most places which require a referendum and which are prohibited in many cases because such communities are at or near their constitutional and statutory debt limits. I have appreciated the opportunity of presenting our views and I will be pleased to try and answer any questions you might have. THE "WATER QTJALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1068" Mr. BASFORD. We feel that our association's concern for and commit- ment to an effective nationwide water pollution control effort is very evident. It is therefore particularly difficult for us to question any ap- proach which would provide us with additional financial assistance to combat water pollution. 1-lowever, it is not possible to us to endorse the financial proposal contained in H.R. 15907. The heart of the issue is that such action could establish a principle and a precedent which would jeopardize the tax-exempt feature of State and local government bonds. If these bonds could retain their tax-exempt feature, it would be most likely that we could endorse the proposal. PURPOSE OF PROPOSAL APPRECIATED We appreciate the well-intentioned motivation for this proposal and we certainly do not see it as an effort on the part of any of the authors to jeopardize or attack the exemption. Rather we see it as an attempt, through new financial arrangements to meet what is indeed a very severe crisis. However, we are compelled to spell out our reserva- tions. In effect what the proposal is doing is requiring the local govern- ments to assume not only their share of the bonded indebtedness for water pollution control facilities, but that of the Federal Government as well. If counties had the same ability to raise their debt limitation as does `the Federal Government, one `aspect of the problem would not be so difficult. Unfortunately, not only must counties get approval from the State to raise often unrealistically debt limits, but sometimes a State constitutional amendment is required. Since we must operate under this restricted financial limitation, we are faced with the problem of assigning priorities to the many press- PAGENO="0444" 436 ing needs of our counties. Water pollution control, of course, ranks among the most pressing needs in thousands of areas. I might mention here that in a recent poii in our community, checking on individuals opinions on issues of primary importance, the latest one I saw listed pollution along with education, second only to Vietnam. COUNTY DEBT LIMITS However, the suggested procedure would preclude many counties from proceeding to deal with other problems within the community. They would be lacking in the necessary debt authority for other public purpose projects. One could say that the option is still with the county and if they did not desire to assign such a high priority to water pollii- tion control, they need not do so. However, by virtue of the fact that some local governments will be able to receive straight grants, $2~5 million requests for fiscal 1969, such communities won't be confronted with such a problem while others will. TAXABLE STATUS OF BONDS Perhaps the most vexing problem is the overall effect upon the tax exempt feature of our bonds. It is our contention the exemption is a constitutional one and not statutorily granted. Consequently, the ques- tion is raised as to whether local governments can waive the consti- tutional righ of the holder of a State and local government bond to receive the interest from the bond, exempt from Federal taxation. If we accept an affirmative answer to that question, then we could find ourselves disavowing our position as to the constitutional exemption. There are other problems connected with the proposal which we un- derstand will be brought out in other testimony. We do not wish to appear to be entirely negative and would now like to turn to wlmt we propose as alternatives. TWO ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES We believe there are two approaches that this committee should con- sider in order to meet local government's serious difficulties with the present legislation. Either approach, would, we think, remove the grave difficulties we have with the bill. (1) Limit contract ant horit~, to Federal share The first approach would provide that the Secretary's contract authority would be limited to the Federal financial share of the project. The present bill, for example, provides that if a water pollution control facility is to cost $1 million, and the Federal grant is to be 30 percent, the entire $1 million is secured by the sale of federally guar- anteed taxable bonds issued by the State or local government. The Federal Government will pay the principal and interest on $300,000 plus the subsidy to the local government to compensate for the higher interest rates necessary because the issue is not tax exempt. Our proposal would require State or local governments to issue only $300,000 in federally guaranteed, taxable bonds, the entire amount of principal and interest to be paid by the Federal Government. In effect PAGENO="0445" 437 the State or local government would be a conduit for the Federal Gov- ernment. However, for bookkeeping purposes, the bonded indebted- ness would be that of the State and local government. Under this proposal, the State or local government would be free to raise its own share of the project cost; that is, $700,000, any way they choose, most likely, of course, by issuing their regular tax-exempt bonds. There would be no need for the Federal Government to subsi- dize the interest rates of the local government share. The principal, and the lower interest rates on tax exempt bonds in the amount of $700,000 would be the obligations of the local government. The full faith and credit of the local government would guarantee this por- tion of the bond. We believe this proposal would accomplish everything the adminis- tration has advocated. It would guarantee an increased effort by both Federal and local government in the vital area of water pollution con- trol, it would not add to the national debt, and the Federal Govern- ment would riot be guananteeing tax-exempt bonds. (~) FederaZ revenue bonds Our second alternative proposal is made with the realization of this Nation's serious fiscal problems, but with the fervent hope that soon it would be possible for Congress to consider it. `We would propose that a national fund be created by the Federal Government~ and that moneys for this fund be obtained by the issu- ance of a new type of Treasury obligation that might be called a Fed- eral Revenue Bond. These bonds would be secured by the revenue from two sources. The first, and initially by far the largest, source would be the annual congressional appropriation from Congress. The second revenue source would be the annual principal and interest payments by cities, counties, and States into the fund. A city or county that by its volition-or as the result of a court order-desiring to build a sewerage treatment plant from this fund. In exchange, the city or county would enter into a contract with the fund agreeing to pay back the principal and interest on the amount they borrowed. This is based on the assumption that the Federal Gov- ernment would continue to put up a portion of the money as its part of the national obligation to clean up streams. In effect, we are sub- stituting direct annual appropriations for a new type of revenue bond financing. Advantages of the plan. 1. From the point of view of the Treasury, this type of bond financing should be preferable to the present ar- rangement. Bonds sold by the Federal Government to provide funds for the program would be taxable by the Federal Government. This would, of course, also include the portion of the funds repayable by the city or county. 2. This plan would also remove a very great strain on local gov- ernment financing in the minicipal bond market. As you know, our cities, counties, and States are going increasingly to the municipal bond market for schools, airports, and a host of public purposes. This proposal would tend to remove a very significant portion of these de- niands from the municipal bond market which is already greatly strained. 3. From the point of view of localities, we feel that in many places this would be a giant step forward because it would apparently bypass PAGENO="0446" 438 State and local restrictions in most places which require a referendum and which are prohibited in many cases because such communities are at or near their constitutional and statutory debt limits. I appreciated the opporunty of presenting our views, and I will be pleased to answer any questions that I may. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to compliment you on a very fine statement. I do not blame you folks for fighting for this tax-exempt bond. I think it is very vital to local government. I think you have made a very persuasive and effective argument for it. I would yield further questions to our senior Republican member of the committee. Mr. BASFORD. A man I admire very much. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much, particularly for the latter comment. Mr. BASFORD. That is from a Democrat, by the way. Mr. CRAMER. Doubly thank you. INTEREST RATE I do think you have made a very interesting contribution. What limitations do you have in Duval on the interest rate to be charged for your bond issue? Mr. BASFORD. We have not had any problems as far as limitation on the interest rate. The latest bonds that we issued were for this motor vehicle safety provision for our automobile inspections and the net bid that was awarded on that the other day was $1.2 million and was 4.80069, which we thought was very favorable. Mr. CRAMER. What statutory limitation do you have, if any? Mr. BASFORD. I cannot tell you. I do not know. I do not recall. DEBT LIMITATION Mr. CRAMER. What is your debt limitation? You mentioned that on page 4. Mr. BASFORD. I was speaking generally for the National Associa- tion of Counties there; because in some instances they have-other States are different from Florida. We have a constitutional prohibition against our full faith and credit behind our bonds. Ordinarily we are either provided for authority through statute or we get statute ref- erendum, and it would be limited to whatever is provided there. USER CHARGES Mr. CRAMER. Generally your water user-type charges are to be re- paid, right? Mr. BASFORD. We have a problem in communities, I think, through- out. Some communities provide free services in sewers, particularly most time the water is paid for. We are encouraging at home, for instance our Jacksonville municipality has not been charging, and they keep telling people they have got free garbage and free sewer service. We know this is not true. You do not get your bread free in a grocery store. It is either going to come out of an ad valorem tax or another source of revenue. PAGENO="0447" 439 We are advocating that we concur wholeheartedly that you are right in putting into this act to bring about service charges for these facili- ties. We certainly agree. GRANTS VERSUS BOND APPROACH Mr. CRAMER. On page 4 you discuss straight grants versus the bond- issue approach under this bill. As the bill is drafted, the entire $700 million could be used for bond issue purposes. So actually this could be a hidden way to do away with all grants for sewage treatment and substitute bond issues. What would be your reaction to that? Mr. BASFORD. I mentioned in the statement that we would like to see the grants continued as much as within, you know, that it is finan- cially possible on the part of Congress and the Federal Government. We are suggesting that this would certainly encourage more self- help and more local participation financially. And I am not~ sure that I could speak on behalf of the association in regard to their policy. I do not think they would want me to say that I would concur that you should do away with the grants. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OR TAX EXEMPTION Mr. CRAMER. I think you make a very interesting point on whether or not the tax exemption of a city bond is a constitutional right, or whether it could be revoked statutorily through this procedure. It has always been my impression that this has been a constitutional right. Mr. BASFORD. Thank you, sir. We concur with that. Mr. CRAMER. And that local communities should not be hamstrung or hampered by Federal legislation restricting their issuing of tax- exempt bonds. Mr. BASFORD. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. And I think this question of whether it is a~ constitu- tional right ought to be given some vei~y exhaustive legal research by this committee before even giving any consideration to it on tax- exempt bonds. USER CHARGE REQUIREMENT AND RESERVE FUND Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman yield for a question relating to this bill on the requirement for user charges? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. EDMONDSON. Did I understand that the witness said he accepted the language of H.R. 15907 on that subject which appears on page 6? Mr. BASFORD. Yes, sir. I read it. And the only thing I disagree with is I think the part which allows the Secretary to waive, that should l)e taken out. I think it should be required. I do not think that is the- I do not believe the philosophy of the act overall is consistent with allowing these moneys to be provided to a system that is not passing the cost of operation and expensing of it back to the customer. This is very inconsistent with my personal economic philosophy at least. PAGENO="0448" 440 Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you believe the National Association of Coun- ties would go along with this authority for the Secretary to deter- mine "that the appropriate local public body having jurisdiction over the treatment works has established or agreed to establish (i) a sys- tem of charges for the treatment works service area which will be adequate to enable it to be operated in a businesslike manner capable of amortizing treatment. works costs together with operation and maintenance costs, and (ii) a reserve to meet, to the greatest extent possible, expansion or replacement requirements of the treatment works service area." Do you believe the National Association of Counties would be pre- pared to accept that double requirement by the Secretary? Mr. WAnD. Mr. Edmondson, we would certainly prefer not to have to accept that. As you know, we accept an awful lot of things to get Federal money. This might have to be one of them; but we would prefer not to have that stringent requirement built into the bill itself. Mr. EDMONDSON. Well, I have spoken to the second part of it, but it is a package proposition. Mr. BASFORD. I concur personally, because I realize that one of the problems Congress has is turning loose tax dollars to local officials and local people without proper controls to see these things are hon- estly applied to the purpose for which it is intended. As C. P. said, I am sure local government would not prefer to go quite this far in the bill. If this is the price of getting good proper pollution abate- ment and to provide sewer treatment facilities at this early date, yes. As an individual I would concur and as a county commissioner. I can- not say this would be the position or philosophy of the National Association. Mr. WARD. From official policy of the National Association of Coun- ties, we do desire to have as much flexibility in receiving these Federal funds as possible. And we would prefer that this type of structure not be built into the bill. Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you. Mr. CRAMER. On that point, of course, we have had considerable testimony in opposition. Mr. BASFORD. I am sure you have. Mr. CRAMER. To the whole proposition of the Federal Government saying that if you are going to use Federal money, and you pay 30 percent Federal, for instance, it is going to be 70 percent local, because of the 30 percent Federal Government tells them they have to use user charges and user charge has to be sufficient to include also future main- tenance and improvements. And so we have had a lot of opposition to that from the standpoint that a lot of the communities do not use that method in the first place. Mr. BASFORD. I think that our obligation as public officials, both yours and mine, goes to this extent, that we in appropriating moneys from the public Treasury so to speak have a responsibility to see that we do not get all screwed up on this-who pays for what? I do not think it is fair for me to receive sewer services at my house and have Joe Doakes down the street paying it out of his business establishment by ad valorem taxes. I concur with you wholeheartedly on that. PAGENO="0449" 441 Mr. CRAMER. If you can make that decision locally, fine. I do not `want the Federal Government dictating that for each community must be the condition. Mr. BASFORD. Our new philosophy in the new government is* that user charges will be paid. FEDERAL REVENUE BONDS Mr. CRAMER. I just have one other question due to the time problem. You make a very interesting observation on page 7 in your alternative plan, paragraph 1, advantages of plan, second sentence Bonds sold by the Federal Government to provide funds for the program would be taxable by the Federal Government. - In other words, I gath~r `it is `your observation that if they like this nonexempt bond approach, let the Federal Government go into it, not force the local communities into it. That is the point you are making, `is it not'? Mr. BASFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMEII. -I just do not think the Treasury would go for that. I think they would change their mind' about the tax. Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman' from Texas. POLLUTION FROM F~DE1IAL INSTALLATIONS Mr. ROBERTS. I- have one question that would relate to the pollu- tion contributed to our problem down there by the Federal Govern- ment. What about your defense establishments and so on? What per- centhge are they contributing in the polluting, and what are they paying for? Mr. BASFORD. Yes, sir. This is an interesting point. We have been assured continuously, particularly during our legislative hearings when I was in the legislature that our local military establishments have very modern up-to-date treatment facilities. Recently our water and air pollution control commission cited these establishments. We found that t~o of them were very, very offensive-the Naval Air Station, and also we `have these carriers based at Mayport, you know, which do not treat their facilities. And they are working on a plan now whereby there may be some system of transferring this effluent and waste to a ground establishment from these ships. They are completely trying to cooperate; but, yes, sir, there is a tremendous amount being contributed by them in our particular coin- munity, but I did not want to get too involved in just my local prob- lems because I am supposed to be representing 3,000 other govern- ments here today. I want to try to represent them here too. Mr. ROBERTS. I think in many cases, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has contributed to the pollution without any effort to control its own waste. I wanted to bring that point out. Mr. BASFORD. Thank you, Congressman Roberts. RETIREMENT OF CLARENCE DOANE Mr. EDMONDSON. Before I recognize the next member for ques- tions-and there are several'othër questions-I would like to take this 94-376-05-------29 PAGENO="0450" 442 opportunity as one I appreciate having a chance to exercise to call the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that one of our ablest and most effective members of the committee organization, the gentleman who has handled our Government Printing Office prob- lems for about 15 years, Mr. Clarence Doane, is preparing to leave the committee. And I think that his contribution to the reports and to the documents of this committee has been one that seldom has been noted or appreciated, but very deeply appreciated by all of us on the committee. I know I speak for all the members of the committee when I say that I think he has played a very important role in seeing that the output of this committee is an excellent one in terms of printed ma- terial that comes out. I want to wish Clarence and also his lovely wife Hilda many happy years in retirement. We hope that you will keep an eye on our print- ing and give us a fatherly bit of advice now and then even in retire- ment, because we value very much his work and his judgment and his effectiveness. [Applause.] Mr. DOANE. Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate that. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Cramer wants to join in the remarks. Mr. CRAMER. I wish you many happy years in retirement and I hope you make a lot of holes-in-one. Mr. DOANE. I am still shooting for them. Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate very much the very fine work you have (tone in a very difficult field. I am sorry you are leaving. We are losing a very good man. Mr. D0ANE. I am sorry too. There comes a time. Mr. EDMONDSON. We are going to miss you. We want you to know that. We appreciate you very much. Mr. DOANE. I know that. Thank you. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Before I go into any questioning, I too want to am- plify and commend the chairman for acknowledging the great service of this very fine gentleman, because I know that every member of the committee has observed him in his own quiet way working diligently and efficiently as a public servant could and is most appreciative of the fact that you have taken this time to record these remarks on the record during a very historic piece of legislation. I thank the chairman for taking the time to acknowledge his great services. Mr. DOANE. Thank you again. DEBT FINANCING BILL A5 VEHICLE TO ASSIST SMALLER COMMUNITIES Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Basford, as you know, I am a member of frater- nity of local government officials in California. We call them members of the board of supervisors. And I welcome your testimony very much. Now, as most of the committee members know, and the people that have been present during the hearings, they are aware of the fact that the country needs to reverse itself on population patterns, and I think you were in the room when the previous witness heard my comments in this regard. I would like to have both you and Mr. Ward, if you will, give to this committee so that it will be placed on the record- PAGENO="0451" 443 and frankly I would like to ask that if you would like to revise and extend afterward, I would ask that the Chair give you an op- portunity to extend your remarks into the record at this point. And this relates of course to using this vehicle, this legislative vehicle we have before us now as an opportunity to permit the smaller commu- nities in America and maximum opportunity to permit them to ac- commodate industry, hopefully to decentralize this country and pro- vide for freedom of economic opportunity throughout the entire Nation, instead of continuing with this trend toward major urbaniza- tion, and in effect developing this megalopolis area that I think is cost- ing fantastic sums of money because of this current method of financing. And I wonder if you would direct-both of you-direct some of your remarks toward what I am trying to accomplish. I would like; to have your point of view. Mr. BASFORD. I would rather let Mr. Ward speak on this for the official policy of the association because I tend to get back to my per- sonal philosophy too often on these things. Mr. WARD. Thank you. Mr. Clausen, I would bring the committee's attention to the formation of a new group called the Town and Country Alliance which is composed of about 100 associations throughout Washington-labor, business, governments, and so forth, and it has a~s its purpose the development and formation of a policy to bring about a balanced urbanization in the country and try to for- mulate various programs-water pollution control, transportation, jobs, housing, and so forth, which can do just what you are talking about. One of the most startling facts we have come across is the fact that Paul Holsocker (?) indicated that if we are to maintain just the present level of the population in the ghettos today there has to be a top migration each year of 500,000 people just to stay where we are. The migration now is only 50,000. But the problem of devoting your attention to the core of the central city is not going to be the solution as we see it. There has to be a balance and we think we have to use every mechanism possible to bring this about. We are not trying to say we are trying to wrest Federal resources from one area to another area but to bring a standard into perspective. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is it not true that this particular piece of legislation, would not this give us an opportunity to diversify the economy to broaden the economic base and in effect open the opportunity for many of the rural sections of this country to participate in a maximum economic growth? Do you see this as a possible vehicle to start to redirect this trend? Mr. WARD. First of all, we wouldn't seek anything that would take away the emphasis that this particular program has on some of the very big cities where there is a fantastic need. Like Commissioner Basford says, they are going to be accepting in the next several years the total equivalent authorization for the entire Federal Government. But I think that any program should be considered, in the light of a balanced organization solely. I couldn't comment as to the figures of how it should be redeveloped or redefined or what percentages should be given. Mr. CLAUSEN. This last question I would like to direct to you, Mr. Basford, in your capacity as a county official and I would like to have your viewpoint of it. PAGENO="0452" 444 Mr. BASFORD. I will have to give you a different background. I called an areawide conference in regard to this matter back in October or November of 1967 because in Jacksonville we are not just involved in what our iiroblem is in one county, in Duval County, because the St. John's River. basin starts way down at St. Augustine and it has interstate aspects now. So we met our commissioners and both city officials and county officials and we were having. a survey of all sec- tions, even with the county just south of us, and we agreed to cooper- ate in our pollution control and the sharing of information, and the Jacksonville, I)uvai County Planning Board now serves three other counties. These are our stepbrothers and little brothers all around us there. So anything that would help them would also help us solve our complex urban problems by giving them assistance and making their places equally desirable to live in. They know that through transporta- tion and other things that if they benefit we also benefit. In many places we have formed area groups of businessmen, of political leaders, and others not to deal with just one county or one municipality but with the whole area. I do think, to answer your question, that this might be one of the ways-this vehicle might be one of the ways to accomplish your de- sired purpose and I think all of our purposes. We all feel that. way. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Basford, I want to thank you for an excellent statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCI-TWENGEL. I too wish to commend you for a fine statement and I think we will benefit from your testimony. Mr. BASFORD. Thank you, sir. We hope to . do a lot of business on our cross-State barge canal. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, gentlemen. The next witness is Mr. Jesse Caihoon of the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee. We are glad to welcome you before the committee, gentle- men. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OP JESSE M. CALHOON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION (Ai?L-CIO); ACCOMPANIED BY HOYT HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. CALl-looN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jesse M. Calhoon, president, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (AFL- dO), and I am accompanied by Hoyt Haddock, exceutive director of the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee. At the outset, I wish to state on behalf of National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO), the union I am privileged to represent as president, and the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, com- posed of the National Marine Engineers Association, the International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, the National Maritime Union, the International Association of Longshoremen, Great Lakes Seamen Local 5000 of the United Steelworkers of America, American Radio Association, and the Industrial Union of Marine and Ship- builders Workers of America, that we recognize the many problems which are created by oil pollution of our navigable waters. PAGENO="0453" 445 ADEQUATE LEGISLATION SUPPORTED Needless to say, as representatives of seamen both licensed and un- licensed, we are aware of the need for adequate legislation in this area and will continue to support all reasonable efforts to eliminate or minimize the serious hazards created by oil pollution. BILL WOULD SUI3JECT SEAMAN WITIIOUT FAULT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES We are concerned, however, that S. 2760, adopted by the Senate and now under consideration by the House, makes it a crime for any licensed officer or other seamen who may "discharge or permit the dis- charge of oil," and this goes to even one drop of oil, without the normal and usual requirement that such conduct be either grossly negligent or willful. Licensed officers are also subjected, under this proposed legisla- tion, to the revocation or suspension of their licenses if they "dis- charge or permit the discharge of oil," again without the requirement that such conduct be grossly negligent or willful. It should be observed that the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 recognized the principle that an essential element of the commission of the crime of "discharge" of oil is willful intent to commit the proscribed conduct or gross negligence. The 1924 act defined the term "discharge" as "any grossly negligent, or willful spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting or emptying of oil * * S. 2760 would eliminate such ele- ments of willfulness or gross negligence. The effect of the proposed legislation is that if a licensed officer or other seaman causes or permits the discharge of oil (absent a finding of certain exonerating emergency conditions) he is guilty of a crime despite the fact that he may be wholly without fault, despite the fact that the equipment aboard the vessel may be latently defective, un- reliable, or oboslescent and despite the fact that the officer or other seamen may take all reasonable steps to prevent oil discharge. And, gentlemen, practically, every vessel in the world is built to discharge oil. They are designed that way. We are certain that the Congress would not wish to impose such an intolerable burden on American maritime officers and other seamen who have a long history of loyal and dedicated service aboard vessels of the American merchant marine. A brief analysis of the oil pollution control provisions of 5. 2760 is in order. The definition of "discharge." Section 19(a) (7) of S. 2760 defines "discharge" as: Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping oil. Section 2(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 defines "discharge" as: Any grossly negligent or willful spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting or emptying `of `oil. The 1924 act definition thus differs in two respects from 5. 2760 in that the former includes the qualifications "grossly negligent, or will- ful" and in that it does not include "dumping." The report of the Senate Committee on Public Works (90th Con- gress, first session, report No. 9017) states that the terms "grossly negligent or willful" were eliminated because- PAGENO="0454" 446 The question of liability is better left to the penalty provisions of the legisla- tion. (P.22). The crime of "discharge." Section 19(b) of 5. 2760 defines the crime of "discharge" as follows: Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable acci- dent, collision, or stranding, and except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section, it is unlawful to discharge or per- mit the discharge of oil by any method, means, or manner into or upon the navi- gable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines of the United States. The 1924 act, section 3(a), provides: Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable acci- dent, collision, or stranding, and except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as hereinafter authorized, it is unlawful for any person to discharge or permit the discharge from any boat or vessel of oil by any method, means, or manner into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, and adjoining shorelines of the United States. The oniy substantial difference between the two provisions is that the 1924 act makes it unlawful "for any person" to discharge, whereas S. 2760 eliminates the words "for any person." However, the elimina- tion by S. 2760 of the terms "grossly negligent, or willful" from the definition of the word "discharge" would necessarily mean that under section 19(b) it is unlawful to discharge oil (except in case of emer- gency, imperiling life or property, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding) even where the conduct is neither grossly negligent or willful. The Senate committee report on 5. 2760 makes it perfectly clear that the intention of section 19(b) is to make the discharge of oil unlawful "regardless of fault." The report states as t.o 19(b): The bill would make it unlawful for anyone to discharge oil into the wa- ters . . . regardless of fault. The amended 1924 Act now prohibits only grossly negligent and willful discharges of oil. The bill, like the 1924 act, recognizes that there are exceptions to this general prohibition which should be recognized in applying a criminal statute. These are cases of emergency where life or prop- erty are involved, other than the property of the vessel or shore installation, or cases of unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding. Thus, the test under the bill is whether the vessel or shore installation discharged the oil and, if it did, whether the discharge was excusable under one of those exceptions. If the discharge did not come under one of the exceptions, then the discharge is un-, lawful. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF OFFICERS' LICENSES BY THE COAST GUARD FOR "DISCHARGE" Not only would it be unlawful under S. 2760 for licensed officers or other seamen to "discharge" oil regardless of fault or negligence but the U.S. Coast Guard under section 19(g) may- suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other licensed officer of any vessel found violating the provisions of subsection (b) in this section. The 1924 act authorizes the revocation or suspension of the licenses of ships' officers whose conduct in discharging or permitting the dis- charge of oil was either grossly negligent or willful. The effect of S. 2760 is not only to make unlawful the nonnegligent and nonwillful discharge of oil by a licensed officer or other Seaman, but also to im- pose the additional penalty of revocation or suspension of licenses for such nonnegligent or nonwillful conduct. PAGENO="0455" 447 CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR "DISChARGE" Section 19(c) of S. 2760 provides for the punishment upon con- viction of any owner or operator "or any employee thereof" for will- ful violation of the prohibition against discharging oil by a fine not exceeding $2,500 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year. Under the 1924 act, section 4(a)-"Any person who violates sec- tion 3(a) of this act"-was subject to the same criminal penalties. 1-lowever, as has already been noted, the criminal act there was based on either willfulness or gross negligence. The Senate committee report on section 19(c) of S. 2760 specifically states that the criminal penalties could be applied to the "~ * * mas- ter, officer, or other employee on board the vessel or an employee or agent working on or in a shore installation * * ~." (P. 23.) S. 27 CO DISCRIMINATES AGAINST SEAMEN There is nothing in the history of the application or enforcement of the 1924 Oil Pollution Act or in any of the studies or reports of Con- gress or of any agencies concerned with the problem of oil pollution that would warrant this extraordinary punishment of the officers and other personnel of vessels. It is not suggested so far as we have been able to ascertain that there has been a pattern of flagrant disregard by such personnel of the requirements to avoid oil pollution of the waters. Shipowners and operators who may be responsible for causing oil pollution would under S. 2760 suffer certain financial penalties and costs and possibly imprisonment but there is nothing in S. 2760 which would exclude them from con:tinuing in the operation of their business. On the other hand, offending licensed officers and other seamen, whether or not their conduct is negligent or willful, would be subject to the penalty of having their licenses or papers revoked or suspended, thus effectively depriving them of their means of earning a livelihood and also irrev- ocably blasting their seafaring careers. This discriminatory approach of S. 2760 against seaman is com- pounded by the fact that under that bill an employee of a shipowner or operator working on a shore installation who may violate the pro- hibition against pollution by discharge of oil, even if convicted would not be deprived of his opportunity to continue working in the same capacity. Since such employee is not subject to Coast &uard regula- tion, as are seamen, lie would not be subject to a revocation or suspen- sion of license as would seamen. This is really placing the seamen in double jeopardy. Nor can it be gainsaid that the discharge of oil by shoreside installations can be more dangerous to the health and wel- fare of metropolitan communities and adjoining busy waterborne traf- fic than isolated instances of oil discharge from a vessel at sea. The license of a marine officer and the papers of other seamen are legally indispensable to their employment as such. The temporary or permanent revocation of that license or papers outlaws such a person from the maritime officers' service. What appalls us is the very thought that the career of a licensed marine officer or other seamen with an otherwise splendid background of accomplishment and achievement in the service of the American merchant marine may be destroyed upon PAGENO="0456" 448 a finding, as is permitted under S. 2760, that he "discharged or per- mitted the discharge of oil" where such conduct was neither negligent nor willful, and may have been caused by orders of the Federal Government. POOR EQUIPMENT A MAJOR CAUSE FOR DISCHARGES There are countless situations where a discharge of oil could occur with no negligence or willfulness on the part of a ship's licensed officer. The primary cause for such discharges is faulty or inadequate equip- ment installed or continued in operation by the shipowners and opera- tors. And in many instances, the malfunctioning of such equipment is latent and cannot readily be discovered by the responsible ship's personnel. I am not suggesting that ship's personnel be relieved from the con- sequences of negligent or wrongful discharge of their duties. I, and the labor organizations which constitute the AFL-CIO Maritime Corn- inittee, do however urge `that before maritime personnel aboard a ves- sel in the American merchant marine, are deprived of their jobs as seamen, under time-honored rules of equity and justice they must be found guilty of either gross negligence or willful intent to commit the prohibited conduct. American seamen including those who have made their career as licensed marine officers are entitled to no less under our enlightened system of justice. While~ as we have already stated, we recognize that the deliberate and willful discharge of oil by ship's personnel should be appropri- ately dealt with, it is our view that the remedies provided by the action of the U.S. Coast Guard in respect to such personnel is more than suffi- cient. The criminal penalties applicable under section 19(c) of S. 2760 should not be applied to such personnel. The suggested criminal penal- ties up to $2,500 fine and/or a year in jail for seamen whose income, unlike that of the shipowners and operators, is solely derived from their salaried employment in the merchant marine would, in our opin- ion, constitute the kind of cruel and unusual punishment which is ad- horrent to any civilized society. The ultimate sufferers from the irn- posement of such harsh criminal penalties would be the wives and children of these seamen whose very economic existence in practically every instance depends wholly on the employment of the head of the family. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Haddock has some further statements. Mr. HADDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would just supplement Mr. Cal- hoon's remarks briefly. AMERtCAN MEROHANT MARINE 80 PEROENT OBSOLETE First of all, the committee should know that 80 percent of the Ameri- can merchant marine is currently obsolete. Yet the licensed officers and certificated seamen are required to operate these ships. The fact that they are obsolete in itself sets forth conditions which could very well permit contamination of coastal and inland waters over which mer- chant seamen obviously could have no control. We think this needs to be taken into consideration with respect to this kind of legislation. In discussing this earlier, Mr. Calhoon observed that nearly all of the spillage of this oil that comes to the public's attention, that is the PAGENO="0457" 449 large amounts of oil that are spilt, almost invariably come from Ameri- can-owned foreign-flag ~hips-ships which are not operated by Ameti- can personnel, if you will. We think this question ought to be well in the minds of this committee. Also, it seems to us that this is a good place for the Congress to at least set the tenor to indicate that people who operate equipment are not responsible for the failures of that equipment. Certainly, insofar as sea- men are concerned, they pay particular attention to the equipment they operate because their lives depend upon it. However, as pointed out with respect to the obsolescence of the equipment, there are other built- in features of equipment over which they have no control or no knowl- edge. Latent obsolescence of equipment or latent defects which show up in equipment obviously merchant seamen can't be responsible for. Yet in the past the tendency has always been to blame the man and not the equipment. We should certainly like to see this committee re- verse this trend and put the onus where it should be. INLAND WATERWAYS EQUIPMENT NOT REGULATED FOR SAFETY Now a very large segment of our transportation system, the inland waterways equipment is the only segment of our transportation system that is not regulated for safety. Neither the personnel nor the equip- ment are covered under safety regulations. Certainly this is perhaps the most vulnerable section of our entire industry when it comes to the question of polluting or endangering lives. Some of you are familiar with equipment knocking out bridges and disrupting other forms of transportation endangering entire water supplies of various cities or, if you will, endangering the entire lives of large cities on our rivers and inland waterways through the failure of equipment or failure to have competent personnel on the ships. It doesn't make any difference how competent the personnel is on the ship. If you don't have safe equipment you have a gap in your safety insofar as the public is con- cerned. You must have safe equipment and safe workmen going to- gether to make this possible. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to ask whether or not there is anything in your agreements or contracts with the owners of the ships equipment about standards so that your men would not be required to man these ships which are dangerous and inadequate and do not meet certain standards. Mr. HADDOCK. All of the maritime unions have clauses in their con- tracts dealing with safety conditions, and there are many instances where seamen simply refuse to sail on vessels because they consider them unsafe. However, there are many conditions that would be shown up through Coast Guard inspection of vessels that are not now inspected if they were required to be inspected such as the inland waterways. Obviously the average seaman is not an expert in safety. While he may know his job in the particular equipment he works with, the overall hull and configurations and placement of machinery, and so forth, are quite technical engineering problems and require expert people to deal with it. And this is one of the reasons of course why the Coast Guard is required to inspect our deep sea vessels and one of the reasons why they should be required to inspect our nland yes- PAGENO="0458" 450 seTs, also. There is a quirk in the law here that has brought about this situation. These vessels were covered by law while they were steam vessels, but they are no longer steam vessels. They are now diesel vessels or gas vessels or turbine vessels, so that they are no longer inpected for safety. Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from Nebraska has a question. ACT NOT CRIMINAL IN ABSENCE OF INTENT Mr. DENNEY. I agree with you gentlemen. I think that we are talking around the bush here: I, as a former prosecutor, and I would like the record to show I object to this kind of language for two reasons. I do not think any act is criminal unless it is done with intent to cause harm or is done intentionally. Secondly, I believe the way this law is written that you are referring to the Senate bill and not this H.R. 15906; that it places the burden upon the accused to prove he is in- nocent, and that is not true in America. Mr. CALHOON. Mr. Congressman, it is even worse than that. Tinder subsection (g) it says: The Commandant of the Coast Guard may subject to the provisions of section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46 U.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other licensed officer of any vessel found violat- ing the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. Subsection (b) merely says: Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable ac- cident, collision, or stranding, and except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section, it is unlawful to discharge or permit the discharge of oil by any method. One drop of oil you lose your license and no proof whether the equipment broke down or not. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show that I ab- solutely disavow that provision in this law as I do not think it is enforceable because I think you must set forth the criminal intent if you are going to have a criminal penalty. Mr. BLATNIK. Well I think Mr. Haddock and Mr. Calhoon have made a very strong case, for amendment of this bill. It seems to me to be discriminatory on its face not only against the personnel of the ship but also against American seamen as opposed to the seamen on these other vessels who would not be subject to licensing by our own Coast Guard, if I understand the situation on these foreign flag ships. Mr. CALHOON. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. I think it is one item you can be quite sure will be worked over very thoroughly by this committee, gentlemen. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask Mr. Had- dock a question. Regardless of where the fault is placed you still have a tremendous problem here and the present law is not working. Now you have said, Mr. Haddock, that we should put the onus where it should be. Now, we have got to tackle this. Where do you suggest we move if it is not to the seamen? SHIP DESIGN Mr. CALHOON. May I address myself to that. I think the onus should be beginning on the American ships with the design of the ships. PAGENO="0459" 451 Every American shipand every foreign ship-every ship in the world is so designed that in case there is an oil spiflage or leakage in any ship it goes overboard. Equipment on the ships are so designed-we'll take heat transfer agents, lube oil coolers, they are so designed that if the tube ruptures or breaks and there is a leakage, there is oil leaking into the water and not water leaking into the oil. All of the overflows, all of the spill valves in the ship are on the outboard side of the ship. So if there is any spillage it goes into the water and not in the ship. So a big problem could be overcome in ship design. Every tank on a ship, and you take an average freight ship runs 25 to 50 fuel tanks- not because a ship needs t.his many fuel tanks-it is because they take the unaccessible, unusable space in small inaccessible and cut up areas and make this the fuel tanks. Each one of these fuel tanks has an independent overflow. Everyone of these fuel tanks should come to the common overflow and the common overflow should go into the spill tank. Instead of spilling into oceans and waters, it could go into the tank. Mr. MCCARTHY. Could existing ships be modified to take care of the two things you said? Mr. CALHOON. Yes, existing ships could be modified. Every ship is designed that oil tanks are next or adjacent to the water and this doesn't necessarily have to be so. Mr. MCCARTHY. Would you repeat that? Mr. CALHOON. Every ship is designed so that there are oil tanks adjacent to the skin of the ship next to the water. So if there is any rupture in the skin of the ship you get contamination and pollution. This does not necessarily have to be so. The fresh water tanks, the drinking water on the ships by law is prohibited from being in con- tact with the skin of the ship, but there is no such law on the oil tanks. As I said before, they are just utilizing the unusable space in the dry cargo ships for the oil capacity. INSPECTION Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Haddock talked about inspection. You say when they were steam vessels they were inspected and they are not inspected at all now. Mr. HADDOCK. Basically this is true of our inland watercraft. These are the craft operating on the rivers and inland waterways referring t? the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Arkansas, Columbia, all of these rivers. The equipment has changed from steam to diesel primarily and they are not subject to Coast Guard inspection. We have been trying for the past 20 years to get this done and we just don't get it done. Mr. MCCARTHY. I am inclined to agree with the gentleman from Nebraska. We really do not want to hang the seamen from the yardarm when the ships are really built to let the oil flow into the water because the tanks next to the skin are constructed in such a way that any overflow goes into the water rather than into a spill area as Mr. Calhoon says. Mr. DENNEY. Will the gentleman yield? I also am concerned, Mr. McCarthy, that here we are considering criminal acts and criminal penalties in the Public Works Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors and I do not think we have jurisdiction to do that. I think any crim- inal action and criminal penalties should go through the Judiciary PAGENO="0460" 452 Committee. We are going to get intO real trouble with this kind of leg- islation. We are just conglomerating up everything the other body sent over. I think we should get very careful consideration to setting up criminal conduct and penalties when we are trying to set up ways and means to stop water pollution. Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes, I think you have a point there. But this com- mittee has the jurisdiction and the power to enact legislation that will abate pollution, and we pass laws that require shore installa- tions-steel plants, paper plants, and all the rest to have adequate pollution abatement equipment. But, as has been just brought out here by Mr. Haddock and Mr. Caihoon, there is nothing which requires that these ships be designed and constructed and operated in such a way as to abate pollution. It is just the opposite. I think the way they are made and have been made for years the whole idea is to, well if you get too much oil let it go into the water7 and here we are proposing to hang the seamen when we are not doing what I think we should go to the source and do something to require that these ships be built and operated in such a way that the oil does not flow into the water. Mr. HADDOCK. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank also Con- gressman Denney for calling attention to the fact that the bill intro- duced by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. George Fallon, of Maryland, does not contain these onerous provisions in it which come from the Senate. We are grateful for that and we hope that the action of the committee will be on that bill by substitution at least. SEAMAN POWERLESS Just to emphasize what Mr. Calhoon said about the design of these ships, many of these ships that are in operation today are steel-riveted ships, and a rivet on any ship-with a ship 10 years old you are going to have leakage around a rivet I don't care who designs it. And wher- ever there is a rivet that enters one of these tanks you are going to have seepage around that~ rivet. Well now, there is literally nothing an officer or crew member can do about these things. If a plate gets a crack in it, here again there is literally nothing a member of the crew or an officer can do about this other than report it to the company. Unfortunately, there are too many instances where the officers of a ship make requisitions for repairs to a ship which are not carried out. And this is another area that is very ticklish with respect to the officers and seamen on the ship. We have a lot of problems over that. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Haddock, my interest in this being from Ne- braska-I am not a navy man from Nebraska, you see-but I did travel all over the South Pacific as a marine during World War II and I know what you are speaking about is true because I have seen this happen. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Haddock, it appears from what you just said that some of these ships are literally oozing oil while they are plying the trade routes. Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, some of them are. Mr. MCCARTHY. And here we have a bill passed by the other body that would make a seaman literally lose his license and even go to jail for something that he could not control. PAGENO="0461" 453 Mr. HArn~oc~. Has no control over whatever~ Mr. CALHOUN. I would like to address myself to one question you raised a little while ago about what to do about the pollution. Appar- ently from the hearings on the Senate side and the frustration of not being able to pin a liability onto a foreign-flag shipowner was the mo- tivation for putting these onerous penalties into the bill. But where there has been large spillage in this country in the last few years has all been by foreign-flag operators, and as soon as that ship leaves you have nothing to get ahold to. I would suggest to the committee that that oil which is polluting the waters of our coasts and streams belongs to somebody, and cannot a liability be placed on the owner of the oil ~ Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had some very in- teresting and valuable testimony here. Mr. Caihoon, I would like to ask a question about a statement you made. I think you added to your script on page 8 where it reads: "that he `discharged or permitted the discharge of oil' where such conduct was neither negligent or willful." And added "may have been caused by the Federal Government." Mr. CALHOON. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Will you explain how that may have been caused by the Federal Government. MSTS DIRECTIVE Mr. CALHOON. It was brought to my attention no later than yester- day that the Military Sea Transport Service which operates vessels for the military service by civilian crews has put out a directive order- ing the chief engineer not to be aboard when the ship was bunkered and taking on fuel. Now the ships' officers and crews through long tra- dition have taken the bunkering of the ship as one of the most impor- tant and careful jobs and it. was always under the supervision of the chief engineer. This directive took the supervision away from the chief engineer and gave it to the junior officer who has not had the experi- ence in bunkering that a chief has. And it was solely to prevent the payment of overtime and so stated. Mr. SCHWENGEL. And in the process probably, increased the hazard- Mr. CALHOON. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Or opportunity for violation that if the bill left as it is would be an additional responsibility of the seaman. Mr. CALHOON. That is correct, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, that is an important point and a very valuable suggestion made on that point. That is all I have. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your extensive and helpful testimony based on years of experience. The next witness is Capt. Robert Wilcox of the I~'1aryland Port Authority. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OP CAPT. ROBERT WILCOX, U.S. COAST GUARD (RE- TIRED), DIRECTOR, PORT OPERATIONS, MARYLAND PORT AUTHORITY Mr. BLATNIK. Captain, I notice you have a prepared statement and you have heard a lot of the previous testimony. Would you want to PAGENO="0462" 454 read the whole statement? We are hopeful of finishing all the wit- nesses including you. We could have your full statement appear in the record at this point and avoid any repetition or duplication of what has already been amply covered. Would you, in your own judgment, call attention to the areas of particular importance you want to bring up, or would you prefer to read the whole statement? Captain WILCOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first part of the statement I think gives background information and it is not necessary to read it here. But it may be of interest to the committee members to learn how we are handling oil pollution in Baltimore. OIL POLLUTION HANDLING IN BALTIMORE HARBOR Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, that we would like to learn. Captain WILCOX. I will start at the bottom of page 1. The authority is actively engaged in removing debris and oil pollu- tion from Baltimore Harbor. We are trying to keep that harbor as clean as possible, and through the foresight of my predecessor, Cap- tain Kabernagel, coupled with the approval and backing of the corn- Imissioners and executive director of the Maryland Port Authority, we now have modern facilities and equipment for efficiently removing oil and floating debris from the harbor waters. As part of the system, we have a specially designed oil skimmer which was acquired late in 1962 at a cost of over $80,000 [exhibiting photograph]. This vessel has proven most effective in oil removal. However, it will not handle gasoline, kerosene, or diesel oil; nor can it be used in seas higher than 2 feet. We also own and operate a $25,000 debris recovery vessel equipped with a hydraulic front-end loader for removing solid floating debris [exhibiting photograph]. By strewing straw or sawdust on the oil, this boat can also be used in oil recovery operations in calm water. These two units along with companion re- taining booms, small craft, trucks, and trained personnel, coupled with the debris-removal boat owned by the Corps of Engineers, give Balti- more a harbor cleanup capability equal to any in the United States. It must be clearly understood that the oil removal facilities in Balti- more were designed for the work in this harbor. Here they have been most satisfactory. However, our facilities cannot be effectively used in the open waters of Chesapeake Bay except in ideal weather condi- tions, and I would not think of using them in an open sea operation. During the past 5 years personnel from my department investigated 41 oil spills; 26 of these were caused by shore installations and 15 were caused by vessels. Of the 41 investigated spills, our oil skimmer was activated and was successful in removing the oil pollution in 19 cases. In the 22 cases where the skimmer was not activated, it was because the spill did not warrant the deployment of our forces, or it was so situated that it could not be attacked by our floating equipment, or it was gasoline or kerosene. Out of the 19 instances where the oil recovery barge was activated, we were able to determine the identity of the vessel or shore installa- tion which caused the spill in 11 cases. The owner or operator of the vessel or shore installation was then billed for our cleanup services, and in no case did he refuse to pay. We charge $100 an hour for this service. Between 1963 and 1968 we have collected a total of $11,742. PAGENO="0463" 455 Neither the Baltimore city ordinances nor the port authority make any distinction between an oil spill in the harbor caused by a vessel or by a shore installation. The offender is treated the same in each in- stance. However, since Federal authorities are on scene in each case, the port authority has neve taken punitive action against any offend- er, even though we could do so either by an invocation of the city ordinances or the State laws concerning unlawful discharge of oil. It is interesting to note that in most cases of a spill caused by a shore installation, the owner or operator will report the spill to us and request our cleanup services. All our investigated spills have been caused by either acts of God or by accident. We have had no case of a willful violation of the oil pollution statutes. In many, but not all, instances, the owners or operators cooperate fully with us in not only reporting the case but actively assisting in shoreside cleanup operations. Where we do enjoy such excellent cooperation, we give him a thank-you letter after we receive payment for our bill, and send copies to the Coast Guard and to the Corps of Engineers, in the event such letter would serve to ameliorate the punitive action which will be taken on the case. Since I received an invitation to attend his hearing on Monday, April 22, I have not had an opportunity to recommend and obtain an official port authority position on these bills, H.R. 15907, 15906, S. 2760, or to coordinate our position with that of the Maryland State Department of Water Resources. The following comments therefore solely reflect my own personal opinion based on many years of experience in the Coast Guard as well as recent experience with the Maryland Port Authority in the enforcement of Federal, State, and municipal oil pollution statutes. I will not comment on the provisions of H.R. 15907 or the provisions of S. 2760 insofar as the provisions of that act pertain to matters othei~ than pollution control. REQUIREMENT FOR CLEANUP IN OPEN WATERS NOT REALISTIC Although I am in full accord with the principle that the person responsible for an oil spillage should also be held responsible for cleaning it up, I find fault with the wording of H.R. 15906 and S. 2760 requiring the. owner or operator of a vessel from which oil is dis- charged into the contiguous zone or upon the Eavigable waters of the United States, to remove such discharged oil or be held liable to the United States for the full costs of such removal in the event the owner and operator fails to remove the oil. The technology for removing oil from the sea has not yet advanced to the point where this is a realistic requirement. In my opinion we cannot at this time successfully and economically remove oil from the open sea or unsheltered waters, and the attenipts which have been made to do so have been so costly that there is a question in my mind whether or not the costs incurred in these efforts have not been greater than the cost of repairing the damage done if the oil had been left alone. By the way, the owners, I would assume, would be subject to suit by property owners for damage by oil in addition to these other claims. PAGENO="0464" 456 LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT Further, the requirement of these provisions as now written is appli- cable in all instances except where the discharge was due to an act of God. I do not believe it just, in a case of a collision to penalize the owner or operator of a vessel not at fault, for the discharge of any oil which might occur as a consequence of the collision. Yet, as I interpret the provisions of these acts, this could be the case. In certain situations, however, it would be practicable for the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation to remove: oil discharged into or upon navigable waters, and here I cite the example of our cleanup efforts in Baltimore Harbor as a practical method of oil removal at reasonable cost. In my opinion we need to strike a reasonable balance between a situation such as we have in Baltimore on a routine basis and a situa- tion where there is a gross spillage on the open sea or unsheltered waters where it is impractical to remove the oil and where any and all efforts to do so will result in astronomical costs. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is very easy to criticize and find fault. I sat down and tried to write some alternate wordiiig. I found it more diffi- cult than I expected. I have a suggestion here and I am nofv.èry proud of it, but I will read it. . SUGGESTED OPTION or CLEANUP COST PAT~MENT OR LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES As a suggestion, could you not so word the statutes as to give the owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation, responsible and at fault for an oil spill, and I emphasize that, the option of either paying the cleanup costs or being held liable for the damages resulting from the spill, with the Government filing suit in behalf of all claimants? Even in this situation due regard should be given to the national inter- ests of the United States. Specifically, I have in mind Our merchant marine. In our zeal to control oil pollution, we must avoid any action which would further weaken this vital segment of our national economy. - PUBLIC VESSELS AND SHORE INSTALLATION S I note that the definition of public, vessel or public shore installa- tion includes United States and State owned.' If municipally owned vessels and shore installations are not considered; to be' "State owned," I request that the definition be extended to include them also, since one of our more recent oil spills in Baltimore Harbor was caused by a broken fuel line in a cit.y school some five miles distant from the waterfront. UNIFORM PENALTY PROVISIONS it is recommended that the penalty provisions in both. bills be made uniform. In this regard I prefer the wording set forth in H.R. 15906 to the wording contained in S. 2760, except I am in full. agreement with the latter in the application of penalties to shore installations. RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF H.R. 15906 AND 5. 2760 AFTER MODIFICATION Subject to the foregoing comments, I consider the provisions of HI.IR. 15906 and S. 2760 to be sound and just, and I would recommend passage of the bills after modification. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Captain. PAGENO="0465" 457 Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. I was going to say, Captain, it is a very fine and good statement. I would be interested in seeing the operation of your clean- up machinery. May I ask one question? DISPOSAL OF OIL AND REFUSE What do you do with the oil, sawdust, straw, and soaken oil and all this gooky debris that you collect in the harbor? How do you dispose of it? Captain WILCOX. We have a cargo tank in our skimmer. It has a rather small capacity, but it has a capability of discharging the oil from the cargo tank. In other words, if we had a situation where we had a spillage exceeding the capacity of this cargo tank, all we would need was another tank barge to discharge into. We have had a prob- lem of disposing of oil that we collect and we are working on that. It used to be that people would pay to take the oil and now we have to pay to get somebody to take the oil off our hands. The port re- triever here has a front-end loader on it (exhibiting photograph). We have a system of little scows and we can dump any debris right into the little scows that are towed into position. The scows are then towed into a pier and they have a crane truck that lifts the scows onto the bed of the truck and converts the truck into a dump truck and the debris is taken to the city dump and dumped and the truck comes back and the process is repeated. Mr. BLATNIK. Is it burned in the dump? Captain WILcox. It is a city dump and I believe it is. Mr. BLATNIK. I agree with you it is a real problem. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Would it not be possible to refine the oil? Captain WILCOX. Yes, it could be. In a gross spill you will be able to recover quite a bit of the oil, but we have, you might say, small spills and I would think it would be rather costly. All we are in- terested in is getting that oil off our hands at no cost to the Port Au- thority if we can do so. Now the company that uses it, I think they just burn it. I don't believe they refine it. Incidentally, from say 100 gallons of liquid we have picked up 95 gallons of oil to 5 gallons of water. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well I think that is a very excellent operation, an experience many more people could benefit from. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Captain, for your very valuable contribution. Our next witness is Vice Adm. James A. Hirschfield, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), president of Lake Carrier's Association, accom- panied by Alexander B. Hawes, American Waterways Operators, Inc. VESSEL POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OP VICE ADM. ThMES A. HIRSHPIELD, U.S. COAST GUARD (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT HAWES, AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC. Mr. BLATNIK. Admiral Hirshfield is a good friend of the committee of many years in the Coast Guard and has an outstanding place in the 94-370-GS------30 PAGENO="0466" 458 record. It is a pleasure to see you this morning. We appreciate very much your standing by all morning long during the hearings of the committee. The hearings have gone a little bit longer than we have expected, but I would say it is a pleasu re that in 21/2 days we are accu- mulating a volume of testimony which I think will be one of the most impressive hearings that the committee has held and will be one of the most impressive and informative hearings yet compiled, and much of it based on practical experience in some extremely difficult areas. You will be contributing to this hearing in connection with the ships, both foreign and domestic carriers, that use the large inland body of water called the Great Lakes. Will you please proceed. Admiral HIRSHFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am going to skip some of this statement in the interest of saving some time. PECULIAR DESIGN OF GREAT LAKES VESSELS First of al1, I would like to let it be understood that our vessels have their own peculiarities, vessels that are not found in the ordinary seagoing vessel. Of course, the Great Lakes, as you gentlemen know, is the largest fresh water body in the world. It has got about 95,000 square miles in it. They are international waters. They have been declared so by treaties. And the design of the vessel, as I indicated, is peculiar to the Great Lakes. From the smallest to the largest they are of similar construction with the bridgehouse forward and nothing until you get to the aft end where the machinery is. The intermediate portion; that is, between these two houses, is devoted to the carriage of cargo and primarily, as a matter of fact entirely bulk cargoes of iron ore, coal, limestone, grain, and some petroleum products are the trade of the lakes. Our Great Lakes vessel industry is most anxious that the water quality of the Great Lakes be preserved. I am speaking now, Mr. Chairman, purely as to the pollution by commercial vessels. SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES ON VESSELS Every new vessel constructed on the Great Lakes since World War II, and nearly every major conversion since that time, has included some type of sewage treatment facility. By 1960, a system called the Bio-Gest, through private research and at considerable expense, had been developed. This system is based on a bacteriological and oxygen process and actually digests wastes. This Bio-Gest tank is about 10 feet by 8 feet by 4 feet and occupies some 320 cubic feet of vessel space not including piping. In 1964 this system was considerably improved so that today our operators have considered it a highly efficient unit. However, it has been impossible to obtain approval of the Bio-Gest system, or any other system, by the U.S. Public Health Service. That is, the effluent that comes from these systems. There have been 75 waste treatment systems on 41 vessels at a cost of about $15,000 a vessel. This meant an initial expenditure for each vessel just to purchase the equipment of from $30,000 to $45,000-this was the installation cost-the equipment costs $30,000 to $45,000 when it was bought. PAGENO="0467" 459 NO RESOLUTION OF WASTE DISCHARGE REGULATION QUESTION Immediately prior to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Public Health `Service, in cooperation with the several Great Lakes State's, the Canadian health department and vessel operators, initiated a Great Lakes `study project. The result was amendment of the Inter- state Quarantine Regulations to prohibit vessels from disc'harging sewage, ballast, or bilge water within certain delineated areas around water intake cribs in `the lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, from a ves- sel operator's viewpoint, the two most important aspects of the study project were not resolved, namely, the promulgation of standards for treatment of vessel overboard waste discharge's and the development of treatment systems for shipboard installation necessary to meet those standards. I point thi's out merely to illustrate the feeling of frus'tration which has been experienced by vessel owners in endeavoring to learn just what steps should `be taken to control overboard waste discharges. Thus remedial measures on commercial vessels, whose numbers have decreased in a like period; that is, there are fe'wer vessels now which are operating as against t'he increasing discharges that come from municipalities. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Then I would like to go to page 7, gentlemen, and tell you what our proposal's are here. But first of all I think we `have a figure which is rather iifteresting, and that is at no one time are there more than 14,000 seamen on the Great Lakes which is an average of about one seaman for every 6.8 square miles. So we are submitting a draft of some legislation which `embraces four points and these are as follows. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM First: It would seem that insofar as commercial vessels are con- cerned, enforcement of water quality standards should not be achieved punitively through the imposition of prohibitions and penalties. Ini- tially, suitable waste treatment `systems for shipboard installation must be developed. Manufacturers have come up with many devices, such as chemical toilets, et cetera, but t'hese are, at `best, only temporary and stopgap measures. What is needed are type accepted, practical shipboard wa'ste treatment systems which, once install'ed, will assure the owner that his vessel is in compliance with applicable regulations. We earnestly urge t'hat an. accelerated program be initiated directed toward development of improved low-cost techniques for control and treatment of vessel overboard waste discharges. Under the Clean Air Act in connection with air pollution control, such a program has al- ready been initiated. Although the Department of the Interior is responsible for admin- istering the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, we believe the Department of Transportation to be the agency most knowl- edgeable in the field of requirements for vessel construction and re- lated navigational problems. Such an allocation of authority should not only produce greater efficiency but would be productive of greater economies since the problem is not one merely of prescribing stand- PAGENO="0468" 460 ards but designing equipment suitable for shipboard installation. This ultimately must be the responsibility of naval architects, many of whom are employed by the Department of Transporttion, that is, Coast Guard, but none to my knowledge by the Department of the Interior. That department may set the standards but only the Depart- ment of Transportation can design the equipment. Hence, we recommend that the responsibility for the necessary de- velopment program be delegated to the Department of Transporta- tion and that that agency be given authority to certify the acceptance of devices and waste treatment systems for shipboard installation. * i FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF FIELD Second: Once a vessel operator has installed a suitable shipboard waste treatment system, type accepted by the Secretary of Transporta- tion and certified as capable of meeting applicable Federal water quality standards, the vessel should be immune from all State and local laws regulating pollution. The proper functioning of the waste treatment system can be readily determined from inspections con- ducted by the Coast Guard. Enforcement thus becomes a relatively simple process since commercial vessels are already subject to periodic Coast Guard inspection. SIMILAR CANADIAN REGULATIONS NEEDED Third: Insofar as the Great Lakes are concerned, it must be empha- sized again that. we share these waters with Canada. In areas such as the St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers, we have the paradoxical situation now where vessels, while in American waters, are required to close their heads when within 3 miles of certain water intake cribs, but no such requirement is imposed in Canadian waters even though, in many instances, the intake cribs are located virtually on the inter- national boundary line. Moreover, we believe that Canadian, as well as overseas flag vessels anywhere on the Great Lakes, should be subject to the' same regulations and controls as our own vessels. Therefore,. we urge that, before any regulations or requirements are placed in force by the United States on the Great Lakes, assurances be obtained from Canada that essentially similar regulations will be made appli- cable to Canadian waters. `REGULATIONS SI-IOULD COVER GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL Fourth: With respect to the promulgation of Federal regulations,. they should include, in addition to the treatment of overboard waste discharges, garbage, and refuse disposal. Such regulations should be uniform throughout the Great Lakes and should preempt the field. We recognize that the Water Pollution Control Act places primary responsibility for preventing and controlling water pollution in the' States, but this is because of the vast concern over cities and shore- based industry. Vessels calling at a multitude of ports cannot possibly comply with growing plethora of local regulations and require- ments. The need for uniformity is the fundamental cornerstone~ upon which the maritime law of the United States and the exclusive* admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Courts are based. PAGENO="0469" 461 C0~TROL OF BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES ON GREAT LAKES NOT NECESSARY In regulating vessels there may be good reason to control the dis- charge of ballast water from vessels inbound to the Great Lakes from foreign ports outside the North American continent, but we see no necessity for regulating the discharge of ballast water from Great Lakes vessels. Typical Great Lakes cargo vessels employ no dual service ballast tanks, the water ballast spaces being devoted entirely to ballasting purposes. Since these vessels operate exclusively within the Great Lakes, the possibility of contamination occurring from ballast water discharges is minimal. On the Great Lakes the ballasting of a vessel is intricately con- nected with the carrying of cargo, particularly the self-unloading type vessel which is equipped with a large conveyor boom on deck. Any re- strictions or curtailments on the right to take on or discharge ballast water could jeopardize the safety of the vessel. Anyone promulgating regulations in this area must be extremely knowledgeable concerning marine safety. Presumably with the enforcement of all applicable pollution regulations, it should make no difference within the Great Lakes themselves whether or not a vessel discharges or takes on ballast water, provided it does not have dua.l service ballast tanks. Mr. Chairman, there is more to this, but I am going to skip some more. We have drafted, as I said, a proposal which would take care of these points. I thank you very much. (The complete statement follows:) STATEMENT OF LAKE CARRIERS' AssocIATIoN, PRESENTED BY VICE ADM. JAMES A. HIRSHFIELD, U.S. COAST GUARD, RETIRED, PRESIDENT I am Vice Admiral James A. Hirshfleld, United States Coast Guard, Retired, President of Lake Carriers' Association. Our Association is an organization consisting of 22 vessel companies owning and operating on the Great Lakes in the `aggregate 207 bulk cargo vessels comprising 97% of the Great Lakes fleet under TJnited States flag. These vessels have a total trip carrying capacity in excess of 2,740,000 gross tons and transport in excess of 95% of the total bulk commodity commerce of the Great Lakes which moves by American flag vessels. Therefore, it can be readily seen that our interest is the Great Lakes. THE GREAT LAKES For the better understanding of our Great Lakes ships and their operation, I would like to note briefly some of the peculiarities of the Great Lakes; peculiari- ties which have not counterpart elsewhere in the world and which are, we be- ]ieve, deserving of special consideration in the framing of legislation, particularly when such an all-embracing subject as water pollution is involved. First of all, the Great Lakes chain constitutes the largest body of fresh water in the world, the water area aggregating 95,160 square miles. These waters are shared with Canada inasmuch as, with the exception of Lake Michigan, the inter- national boundary line between the two countries runs approximately along the axis of each lake from a point about 100 miles from the head of Lake Superior to the foot of Lake Ontario, and in the St. Lawrence River to the mouth of the St. Regis, 66 miles above Montreal. Of the total water area of the Great Lakes, 34,210 miles lie within the Dominion of Canada. Of the total shoreline of the `Great Lakes, over 8,300 miles, about 4,300 miles are in Canada. The Great Lakes are truly international waters, and they have been declared 1o be so by treaty. The ports of the Great Lakes are served not only by American PAGENO="0470" 462 and Canadian vessels but by the vessels of all of the major maritime nations of the world. Nevertheless, nearly 90% of the lake commerce consists of the move- ment of bulk commodities such as iron ore, coal, grain and limestone and this fact has led to the development of a uniform type of vessel, both American and Canadian, specifically adapted to the handling of bulk cargo. PECULIAR DESIGN OF GREAT LAKES VESSELS The design of the Great Lakes bulk cargo ship is peculiar to the Great Lakes. These ships, from the smallest to the largest, are in general of similar construc- tion with bridge and deck crew houses in the forward end, the engine and boiler spaces being in the after end, together with the engineers' crew house. The inter- mediate portion of the ship, devoted entirely to cargo, is provided with athwartships hatches permitting the entire deck to be thrown open to the reception or discharge of cargo. The ships have double bottoms for the carriage exclusively of water ballast and for safety in the event of bottom damage. They are also equipped with side tanks which, in addition to the purposes served by the double bottoms, gives the cross-section of the cargo hold a hopper shape that facili- tates cargo handling. These construction features of the typical great Lakes ship become extremely important when water pollution control methods and measures are considered. The Great Lakes vessel industry is most anxious that the water quality of the Great Lakes be preserved. It is very often necessary for Great Lakes vessels to use water directly from the lakes for their water supply, both potable and for boiler use. Lake Carriers' Association first expressed its concern over pollution as early as 1914, when a Sanitation Committee was created within the Associa- tion and directives were sent to the vessels informing the masters as to the spe- cific areas to be avoided in replenishing water supplies and not to take on potable water within 15 miles of any large city. The function of delineating areas from which potable water supplies may be safely obtained has long since been taken over by the Public Health Service. SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES ON VESSELS Every new vessel constructed on the Great Lakes since World War II, and nearly every major conversion since that time, has included some type of sewage treatment facility. The original type of unit first installed on vessels was based on the septic tank principle with chlorination in the final stage. By 1960 the Bio-Gest system, through private research and at considerable expense, had been developed. This system is based on a bacteriological and oxygen process and ac- tually digests wastes. A Bio-Gest tank is about 10' x 8' x 4' and occupies sonic 320 cubic feet of vessel space, not including the necessary piping. Because of the particular construction of Great Lakes vessels, with both a forward and after house, at least two tanks are required on each vessel, and some vessels have installed three. In 1964 the Bio-Gest system, through further private research and develop- ment, was considerably improved, so that today vessel operators consider it to be a highly efficient unit. Nevertheless, it has been impossible to obtain approval of the Bio-Gest system, or any other system, by the United States Public Health Service. The difficulty in approving such a system is that there are no official standards or criteria for waste treating facilities. Despite the fact that there are no official standards or criteria to guide vessel operators, they have voluntarily installed some 75 w'aste treatment units on 41 vessels at a cost of about $15,000 per unit, not including the cost of piping and installation. This meant an initial expenditure for each vessel, just to purchase the equipment, of from $30,000 to $45,000 depending on w'hether two or three units were installed. NO RESOLUTION OF WASTE DISCHARGE REGULATION QUESTION Immediately prior to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Public Health Service, in cooperation with the several Great Lakes States, the Canadian Health Department and vessel operators, initiated a Great Lakes study project~ The result was amendment of the Interstate Quarantine Regulations to prohibit vessels from discharging sewage, ballast or bilge water within certain delineated areas around water intake cribs in the lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, from a PAGENO="0471" 463 vessel operator's viewpoint, the two most important aspects of the study project were not resolved, namely, the promulgation of standards for treatment of vessel overboard waste discharges and the development of treatment systems for ship- board installation necessary to meet those standards. I point this out merely to illustrate the feeling of frustration which has been experienced by vessel owners in endeavoring to learn just what steps should be taken to control overboard waste discharges. This feeling of frustration is further aggravated by the fact that the pollution caused by municipalities and shoreside industry preponderates and has greatly increased over the years. Thus remedial measures on commercial vessels, whose numbers have decreased in a like period, will be of little avail until the vast pollution of cities and shoreside industry has been greatly reduced. It is evident from the number of commercial vessels involved, American, Canadian and foreign, that at no time are there more than about 14,000 seamen personnel scattered throughout the entire Great Lakes, which comprises 95,160 square miles of water surface. This is an average of approximately one seaman for every 6.8 square miles. Accordingly, in going ahead with any program for commercial vessels, the problem should be kept in proper perspective. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS In the interest thereof, I am submitting for your consideration draft legislation embracing a four-point program for commercial vessels. These four points are: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM First: It would seem that insofar as commercial vessels are concerned, en- forcement of water quality standards should not be achieved punitively through the imposition of prohibitions and penalties. Initially, suitable waste treatment systems for shipboard installation must be developed. Manufacturers have come up with many devices, such as chemical toilets, etc., but these are, at best, only temporary and stopgap measures. What is needed are type accepted, practical shipboard waste treatment systems which, once installed, will assure the owner that his vessel is in compliance with applicable regulations. We earnestly urge that an accelerated program be initiated directed toward development of im- proved low-cost techniques for control and treatment of vessel overboard waste discharges. Under the Clean Air Act in connection with air pollution control, such a program has already been initiated. Although the Department of the Interior is responsible for administering the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, we believe the Department of Transportation to be the agency most knowledgeable in the field of require- ments for vessel construction and related navigational problems. Such an alloca- tion of authority should not only produce greater efficiency but would be produc- tive of greater economies since the problem is not one merely of prescribing standards but designing equipment suitable for shipboard installation. This ulti- mately must be the responsibility of naval architects, many of whom are em- ployed by the Department of Transportation, i.e., Coast Guard, but none to my knowledge by the Department of Interior. That department may set the stand- ards but only the Department of Transportation can design the equipment. Hence, we recommend that the responsibility for the necessary development program be delegated to the Department of Transportation and that that agency be given authority to certify the acceptance of devices and waste treatment systems for shipboard installation. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF FIELD I~iecoiid: Once a vessel operator has installed a suitable shipboard waste treat- ment system, type accepted by the Secretary of Transportation and certified as capable of meeting applicable federal water quality standards, the vessel should be immune from all state and local laws regulating pollution. The proper func- tioning of the waste treatment system can be readily determined from inspec- tions conducted by the Coast Guard. Enforcement thus becomes a relatively sim- ple process since commercial vessels are already subject to periodic Coast Guard inspection. Third: Insofar as the Great Lakes are concerned, it must be emphasized again that we share these waters with Canada. In areas such a the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, we have the paradoxial situation now where vessels, PAGENO="0472" 464 while in American waters, are required to close their heads when within three miles of certain water intake cribs, but no such requirement is imposed in Canadian waters even though, in many instances, the intake cribs are located virtually on the international boundary line. Moreover, we believe that Canadian, as well as overseas flag vessels anywhere on the Great Lakes, should be subject to the same regulations and controls as our own vessels. Therefore, we urge that, before any regulations or requirements are placed in force by the United States on the Great Lakes, assurances be obtained from Canada that essentially similar regulations will be made applicable to Canadian waters. REGULATIONS SHOULD COVER GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL Fourtlt: With respect to the promulgation of federal regulations, they should include, in addition to the treatment of overboard waste discharges, garbage and refuse disposal. Such regulations should be uniform throughout the Great Lakes and should preempt the field. We recognize that the Water Pollution Control Act places primary responsibility for preventing and controlling water pollution in the states, but this is because of the vast concern over cities and shore-based industry. Vessels calling at a multitude of ports cannot possibly comply with growing plethora of local regulations and requirements. The need for uniformity is the fundamental cornerstone upon which the maritime law of the UnitedStates and the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Courts are based. CONTROL OF BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES ON GREAT LAKES NOT NECESSARY In regulating vessels there may be good reason to control the discharge of ballast water from vessels inbound to the Great Lakes from foreign ports outside the North American continent, but we see no necessity for regulating the discharge of ballast water from Great Lakes vessels. Typical Great Lakes cargo vessels employ no dual service ballast tanks, the water ballast spaces being devoted entirely to ballasting purposes. Since these vessels operate exclusively with the Great Lakes, the possibility of contamination occurring from ballast water discharges is minimal. On the Great Lakes the ballasting of a vessel is intricately connected with the carrying of cargo, particularly the self-unloading type vessel which is equipped with a large conveyor boom on deck. Any restrictions or curtailments on the right to take on or discharge ballast water could jeopardize the safety of the vessel. Anyone promulgating regulations in this area must be extremely knowledgeable concerning marine safety. Presumably with the enforcement of all applicable pollution regulations, it should make no difference within the Great Lakes themselves whether or not a vessel discharges or takes on ballast water, provided it does not have dual service ballast tanks. This, then, is the four-point program we propose, namely: 1. An accelerated program looking toward the development of practical, low-cost waste treatment systems suitable for shipboard installation. Sys- tems developed through the program should be type accepted by the Depart- ment of Transportation and certified as meeting applicable water quality standards before installation on any vessel; 2. Vessels equipped with type accepted waste treatment systems should be immune from all state and local laws regulating pollution; 3. Federal regulations governing vessel overboard waste discharges should be made effective on the Great Lakes only after assurances have been ob- tained from Canada that substantially similar regulations will be made applicable to Canadian waters; and 4. Uniform federal regulations should be promulgated governing treat- ment of overboard waste discharges, garbage and refuse disposal. These regulations should be based upon practical technological considerations indicated by the development program and have reasonable compliance schedules. The program we propose is, of course, intended to be limited to commercial vessels. We express no view concerning pleasure craft other than to say that perhaps they might be more susceptible to state regulation or, at least, coopera- tive federal-state regulation. For this reason, we believe pleasure craft should be treated separately. PAGENO="0473" 465 Since it appears to us absolutely essential that exclusive federal jurisdiction be maintained with respect to commercial vessels, we set forth in the form of an attachment to this statement draft legislation dealing exclusively with com- mercial vessels and which vessels we would define as "all documented vessels of the United States and foreign vessels temporarily using the navigable waters of the United States". We earnestly urge that legislation, substantially in the form we propose, be adopted so that insofar as the Great Lakes, at least, are concerned, the orderly elimination of commercial vessels as a source of pollution can become a fait accompli. April 25, 1968. {H.R. 00th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to control pollution from vessels within the navigable waters of the United States Be it enacted by the senate and House of Represeoitatives of the United states of America in Congress assembled, That the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (70 Stat. 498), as amended, is amended- (a) by redesignating section 11 as section 12, and renumbering succeeding sections; and (b) by inserting after section 10 a new section to read as follows: "CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM VESSEL5 USING THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED 5TATES "SEC. 11(a). The Secretary shall give special emphasis to research and develop- ment into new and improved methods having industry-wide application, for the treatment and control of vessel overboard waste discharges. In furtherance of such research and development, he shall request the Secretary of Transporta- tion to- "(1) Conduct an accelerated research program directed toward develop- ment of unproved low cost techniques and systems for treatment of vessel overboard waste discharges and for removal of potential pollutants there- from. "(2) Provide for federal grants to public or nonprofit agencies, institu- tions and organizations and to individuals and contract with public or private agencies, institutions or persons for payment of part of the cost of acquiring, constructing, or otherwise securing for research and development purposes new or improved devices or methods having industry-wide appli- cation for the treatment and control of vessel overboard waste discharges. "(3) Certify from time to time to the Secretary such vessel overboard waste discharge treatment systems as the Secretary of Transportation has type accepted after determining such systems are suitable for shipboard in- stallation and the effluent from which meets reasonable water quality stand- ards. Any manufacturer of a waste treatment system for shipboard instal- lation may request the Secretary of Transportation to type accept such system and certify its suitability to the Secretary. Type acceptance and certi- fication of such system shall be on such terms and conditions and for such period as the Secretary of Transportation deems appropriate. The manufac- turer shall perform such tests as the Secretary of Transportation may re- quire. Whenever the Secretary of Transportation determines that the system will provide treatment of overboard waste discharges in accordance with applicable standards, and the system is deemed satisfactory from a safety standpoint, the Secretary of Transportation shall type accept the system and certify its suitability to the Secretary. "(b) The Secretary, after taking into consideration the type of waste treat- ment systems certified by the Secretary of Transportation to be suitable for ship- board installation, and after taking into consideration technological feasibility, economic costs, the types of vessels, their operative patterns and such other fac- tors as he deems appropriate, shall prescribe in the Federal Register- "(1) Regulations establishing standards for the control and treatment of overboard waste discharges from any vessel or class of vessels into the navigable waters of the United States. The Secretary shall prescribe stand- ards that apply to the extent feasible uniformly to each class of vessel under similiar circumstances. Such regulations shall prescribe reasonable sched- ules of compliance after taking into consideration the cost of compliance PAGENO="0474" 466 and the availability of the required waste treatment systems. The schedules for compliance shall distinguish between new and existing vessels. "(2) Regulations governing the discharge of ballast and bilge water into the navigable waters of the United States by tank vessel, vessels having dual service ballast tanks and all vessels on international voyages. "(3) Regulations governing the discharge from any vessel of litter, sludge, garbage, or other substances of any kind or description, other than oil or dredge spoil, which originates on board a vessel or which is transported thereon into the navigable waters of the United States. Where the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers determines, after the effective date of any regulations issued under this paragraph, that the dis- charge of such substances from a vessel may constitute a potential obstruc- tion to navigation, a permit to discharge such substances shall be issued solely by the Secretary of the Army or his designee in accordance with existing authorities and consistent with such regulations. "(c) Regulations to carry out the provisions of this section shall prohibit dis- charges in quantities, under conditions and at times and locations deemed ap- propriate by the Secretary after taking into consideration the deleterious effect of such discharges on the public health, recreation and fish and wild life, pro- vided that with respect to ballast water such prohibitions shall relate solely to tank vessels, vessels having dual service ballast tanks and vessels on inter- national voyages. "(d) Regulations to carry out the provisions of this section: "(1) may exempt classes of vessels from all or part of a regulation for such periods of time and under such conditions as the Secretary deems appropriate. "(2) shall apply to vessels owned and operated by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compliance would not be in the interest of national security. "(e) Before any regulations under this section are issued, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of Defense; the Secre- tary of Commerce; other interested Federal agencies; and industries affected. The Secretary shall also correlate any regulations issued under this section with efforts to control or eliminate other sources of pollution under this Act and other provisions of law. After regulations are issued, the Secretary shall afford all interested persons and public and private agencies and organizations a reason- able opportunity to comment thereon before they become effective. With respect to the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters as far east as Montreal, any regulations promulgated pursuant to this section shall not become effective until such time as the Secretary of State shall have received assurances from the government of Canada of the adoption of substantially similar regula- tions upon such lakes and waters within the territorial jurisdiction of Canada. `(f) After the effective date of any regulation issued hereunder, it shall be unlawful for any vessel subject to such regulations and not equipped with an approved type accepted overboard waste treatment system to make any over- board waste discharges into the navigable waters of the United States except in accordance with such regulations, but neither this section nor any regulation promulgated thereunder shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of bal- last water by other than tank vessels, vessels having dual service ballast tanks or vessels on international voyages. No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control or treat- ment of vessel overboard waste discharges. No state or any political subdivision thereof shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control or treatment of vessel overboard waste discharges. "(g) Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this section or any regulations issued thereunder shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. "(h) Any vessel violating the provisons of this section or any regulations issued thereunder shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $10,000. Clear- ance of a vessel liable for this penalty from a port of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is paid or until a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. The penalty shall constitute a lien on the vessel which may be recovered by action in rem in the district court of the United States for any district within which the vessel may be found. This penalty shall not apply PAGENO="0475" 467 to a vessel owned and operated by the United States, or a State, or, except where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities, a foreign nation. `(i) Anyone authorized by the Secretary to enforce the provisions of this section may (1) board and inspect any vessel within the navigable waters of the United States, except a vessel owned and operated by the United States or, except where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities, a foreign nation, to insure compliance with the provisions of this section, (2) with or without a warrant arrest any person who violates the provisions of this section or any regulation issued thereunder in his presence or view, and (3) execute any war- rant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction. "(j) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by employees of the Sec- retary of the Interior and by personnel of the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary may utilize by agreement with or without reimbursement law enforcement officers or other personnel and facilities or other Federal agencies to carry out the provisions of this section, including the enforcement thereof. "(k) As used in this section- "(1) the term `person' includes an individual, company, partnership, cor- poration, or association who is the owner, charterer, operator, master, officer, or employee of a vessel, and any individual on board such vessel, but does not include a person on board a vessel owned or operated by the United States or, except where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities, a foreign nation. "(2) the term `United States' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. "(3) the term `discharge' includes spilling, leaking, dumping, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, or depositing. "(4) the term `overboard waste discharge' includes wastes from sanitary facilities on board vessels, such as toilets, wash basins, and laundries, and other contaminated waters. "(5) the term `manufacturer' means any individual, corporation, partner- ship, or association engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of a device to treat or control overboard waste discharges from vessels, or in the impor- tation of such device for resale, or who acts for or is under the control of any such individual or organization in connection with the distribution of such device, but shall not include any dealer of such device. "(6) the term `international voyage' means a voyage from a port outside of the United States to a port in the United States, except that vessels solely navigating on the Great Lakes arriving in a United States Great Lakes port from a port in Canada west of a straight line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and on the north side of Anticosti Island, the 63rd meridian, shall not be deemed to be on an international voyage. "(7) the term `vessel' means a documented vessel of the United States and a foreign vessel temporarily using the navigable waters of the United States. "(1) In the case of Guam actions arising under this section shall be brought :lfl the district court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions shall be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands. In the case of Ameri- can Samoa such actions shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district of Hawaii and such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions. Mr. BLATNIK. Admiral, as usual you have brought some very prac- tical and realistic recommendations based on years in not only the operation of watercraft but also in design and construction. We might have a little problem with starting to break up the water pollution function between the Department of Transportation and the Water Pollution Control Administration now under the Department of the Interior, although I can very well the merit of your proposition that in the complicated design of ship structure, which is a lot different from a building on land, where you scarcely have a straight line in your whole operation, t.hat there ought to be, certainly, some consulta- tion or guidance by naval architects and naval design engineers as well as the pollution experts. PAGENO="0476" 468 Admiral HIRsCHEIELD. Mr. Chairman, I think if the quality stand- ards are set and then the equipment design to meet it, all the Depart- ment of the Interior or the water pollution people would have to do in my view would be simply to meet these standards and the certifica- tion of the equipment as capable of doing that, and as for fitting aboard a ship in a good manner would be up to the Department of Transporta- tion. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. So the standards would still be set by the respec- tive States and the Water Pollution Control agency in the Interior and Department of Transportation would simply see to the design of the ship and the pollution control would be of the efficiency to com- ply with the standards set by the agency. You have a very good point there. Admiral HIBSCUFIELD. My only point is, Mr. Chairman, it would be the hope that the standards set by the Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration would be a single standard; that once this equipment were approved, would meet anywhere. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would also join the chairman in saying you made a very good statement today and I followed it very closely. I note the document attached has not yet been introduced. Admiral HIRSOHFIELD. No, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Have you worked this out with others recognizing this problem or is this entirely the recommendation of the Coast Guard? Admiral HIRSOHFIELD. Mr. Schwengel, this is a thing that was worked out by our people. This does not apply to small boats-only to commercial vessels, and quite frankly only insofar as Great Lakes vessels are concerned. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Just Great Lakes vessels. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Admiral. The next witness is Mr. Jerry D. Maxa, sales manager, Koehier- Dayton, Inc., Dayton, Ohio. You may proceed, Mr. Maxa. VESSEL PoLLUTIoN CoNTRoL STATEMENT OP J~. B. MAXA, GENERAL SALES MANAGER, KOEHLER.. DAYTON, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM SMYERS, CHIEP RE- SEARCH ENGINEER, NEW BRITAIN MACHINE CO. Mr. MAXA. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which has been submitted to the clerk. Mr. BLATNIK. Please give your names to the reporter. Mr. MAXA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jerry Maxa, general sales manager of Koehier-Dayton, Inc., of Day- ton, Ohio. Koehler-Dayton is a subsidiary of the New Britain Machine Co. of New Britain~ Conn. With me is Mr. William Smyers, chief re- search engineer of New Britain Machine Co. We appreciate the opportunity to address this committee and sin- cerely hope that you will consider our statement interesting and mean- ingful. We are here to address ourselves to the subject of water pollu- tion from watercraft. PAGENO="0477" 469 NEED FOR FAIR AND UNIFORM REGULATIONS Koehier-Dayton considers water pollutiOn to be an immediate and important subject. Water pollution does exist. Pleasure boats and corn- rnercial vessels do contribute to the problem, although in a substan- tially less significant manner than some quarters lead us to believe. We do feel that both the pleasure boat and commercial vessel operators are thoroughly confused and disenchaanted with the "hodgepodge" of State and local regulations that confront them today. Furthermore, manufacturers of sewage treatment equipment are confronted with the same dilemma. Therefore, we do encourage enactment of legislation that will prescribe establishment of fair and uniform regulations to control pollution from vessels within the, navigable waters of the TJnited States. There has been considerable debate and much has been written about the pros and cons of the four general classes of pollution control de- vices; namely; holding tanks, recirculating toilets, incinerators, and tieatment devices The fact remains-and on this most experts do agree-that none of these-at this time-represents the perfect solu- tion Therefore, we suggest that the regulations to be established make provisiOn for each, and thereby provide the incentive for continued research and development to advance the state of the art. RELATIVE MERITS or RECIRCULATING TOILET AND MACERATOR/CHLORINATOR DEVICES Being a manufacturer of both recirculating toilets and rnacerator/ chlorinator treatment devices permits us to offer an unbiased opinion as to the relative merits of each. Recirculating toilets, such as we supply for commercial jet liners as the Boeing 727, McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 and DC-8 (60 series) ,Lock- heed C-S military transport, and a host of corporate aircraft, and for the new high-speed trains soon to go into service, are essentially hold- ing tanks that, by means of a motorized pump and filter assembly, re- circulate a solution of water, deodorizing chemical, aand sewage. Con- trary to popular belief, there is no maceration or grinding of the sew- age. The filter prevents the appearance of unsightly solids from entering the bowl during the flush cycle. The tanks vary in capacity- usually about 15 gallons-they are initially charged with about three gallons of water plus 15 or so ounces of a chemical which serves as a deodorant, disinfectant, and coloring agent-usually blue. This solu- tion mixes with the sewage as it is added to the tank. It is this solution of sewage, water, and chemical that is used to flush the bowl. Based on our experience developing recirculating toilet systems, we attempted to promote this concept to the boating industry. The resistance we encountered prompted us to redirect our efforts toward development of a sewage treatment device that could be used in con- junction with existing marine toilets, and thereby provide for safe overboard discharge. The primary objections we encountered were: (1) Need for frequent servicing-on the average between 3 to 5 days before the color and odor of the sewage solution became offensive. PAGENO="0478" 470 I would like to point out here on the aircraft servicing this is done on a daily program basis with very sophisticated equipment. (2) Lack of shoreside facilities. (3) Restrictive capacity-When the tank became filled the unit was no longer usable. (4) Cost-Due to fact existing toilets were eliminated. It should be noted a recirculating toilet can be equipped with self- pumpout capability. While this eases the servicing problem for the boater, it doesn't help the pollution problem because the sewage from a recirculating toilet is not properly treated for overboard discharge. Here again I might interject that this is taking place within our Nation today. Development of a treatment device that could be used with the half million or so existing marine toilets; namely, a macerator/ chlorinator that would meet the requirements prescribed by the Na- tional Sanitation Foundation and the American Boat and Yacht Council and would pass the test program of the Yacht Safety Bureau has involved considerable time and expense. Such a unit must macerate the sewage to a fine particule size so that no identifiable solids can be discharged, and more importantly,. that the chemical treatment assures a reduction in coliform bacteria to level belOw 240 MPN per 100 MI, and this is considered by public health authorities to be an acceptable limit. Extensive in-house testing has provided evidence that the Carlson Mark VI macerator/chlorinator typically reduces the B.O.D. of the influent by two-thirds. Navy testing at Annapolis indicated comparable reuslts. We are prepared to cooperate with any regulatory or testing agency to verify these findings, and thereby hopefully remove the onus which has been placed on the macerator/chlorinator in some quarters. Another criticism that has been leveled at the macerator/chlorinator is that it does not remove or reduce nutrients-that is, nitrates and phosphates. This is true. However, neither do the vast majority of municipal and industrial sewage disposal plants, nor will they for many years to come. Therefore it appears totally unfair to prevent the boater from dis-. charging properly treated sewage into waters that receive effluent from municipal and industrial treatment plants on the basis that the nutri- ents are not removed. Admittedly, there are a few experimental plants in the country today that are attacking the problem of nutrient re- moval, but their installation universally is a long time off. In the meantime, given the opportunity and with continued research, the macerator/chlorinator manufacturers may find the solution to nutrient removal. Another deterrent to effective shoreside disposal of sewage from boats are the marinas and docks remotely located from sewage dis- posal plants whose septic systems, if they have them, would be unable to handle the additional load of sewage from boats. A new safety feature not mentioned in most reports, but is speci- fied in the previously referenced standards; namely, NSF and ABYC, is the so-called fail-safe. This means that the macerator/chiorinator when out of disinfecting chemical would automatically prevent the PAGENO="0479" 471 discharge of any untreated sewage. It would also give, the user a posi- tive indication, either visual or audible, that the device is nonoper- ative. Working in cooperation with the Naval Ship Engineering Center, Naval Ship Research Development Center, the Army Corps of Engi- neers, and the Coast Guard has led to the development-at private expense-of the Mark 10 sewage treatment system for small ships and vessels. It has been tested successfully at the Marine Engineering Laboratory at Annapolis, and meets the requirements of military specification MIL-S-24201. Installations have been made and are cur- rently being made on small naval ships. The commercial marine industry-shipbuillders, operators of tug- boats, barges, tankers, etc.-have all exhibited enthusiastic interest in doing th~ir share in water pollution abatement. Even though several operators have made installation of the Mark 10 system, there is a growing hesitancy by this industry to take positive action now, for fear that future regulations may obsolete their investment. We cannot assume the role of spokesman for the marine industry, but based on our contact with many of its members it appears that they are generally opposed to holding tanks, not only because of instal- lation and servicing problems, but the hazard to safety due to gas formation~ in the tanks. Many have indicated, however, that they are prepared to make the expenditure to start combating water pollution now by installing treatment systems in existing vessels, provided they be given assurance that Government regulations to be established will not obsolete their effort and investment. Obviously we are in no position, nor have we the authority to make such a guarantee. We, therefore, respectfully urge that the committee consider legislation which would assure that macerator/chlorinator treatment systems which meet the recommended standards of control set forth in the "Handbook of Sanitation and Vessel Construction," Public Health Service 1965, and are installed prior to the issuance of regulations to be established, would not be subject to removal or replacement. PAPER ON WATER POLLTJTION BY SEWAGE FROM WATERORAFT Now, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, Mr. William Smyers, chief research engineer of New Britain, is with me and pre- pared, with your indulgence, to briefly define, in layman's language, three technical terms that are used by many but understood by few. Mr. BLATNIK. Is there an additional document here describing macerator/chlorinator production? Could we put this in the record at this point in its entirety and, Mr. Smyers, if you have any pertinent points, to give them attention, because we will consult with technical people in the pollution control agency and certainly double check back with both of you men, if necessary. But there has been a call for a quorum and there are four more witnesses still waiting. So submit the statement in its entirety rather than give us a long academic and technical chemical and engineering dissertation at this point. `We cer- tainly shall go over it as much as we understand it. Mr. SMYER5. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might read a little bit on page 3 which I think has a bearing and a little more. PAGENO="0480" 472 Mr. BLATNIK. Well, the full text will appear in the record. Mr. MAXA. I think the only point of Mr. Smyers and I think the only point our report makes is from our contact with the industry it is a little bit misrepresentative of the facts, and this is what we are hopefully pointing out. What we encounter in our contact with vessel operators in this subject of nutrients, people up and down the Missis- sippi River and Ohio River, all these commercial operators are saying froim their interpretation of certain reports that this is going t.o go the way of holding tanks. There are so many people whose opinion is based on certain reports on the subject of nutrients and that is why they are going to have to put in holding tanks. This nutrient business is a problem of a sewage disposal tank. All we are trying to point out is the calling off- Mr. SCHWENGEL. I. think you got a real good point here. We are pressed for time. If you are sufficiently interested and can arrange a schedule, maybe you could care to stay around. I would like to hear some of this testimony. Mr. SMYETiS. Later this afternoon or when? Mr. SCHWENGEL. I do not know what the schedule is. Do we plan to meet this afternoon at 2? Do we have permission? Mr. BLATNIK. We have the permission to meet. As I understand it, you expect better performance from the small compact unit you have on pleasure craft and boats. Mr. S~n~Rs. That is right. If you prohibit the macerator/chlorina- tor and say you must use the holding tanks, the boat either dumps the nutrients into the lake or pumps it at a dock through the sewage sys- tem and back into the lake again. The other point is the macerator/ chiorinators developed are reducing the B.O.D. much better than the municipal systems in use because most of the systems in use are only primary systems these days. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, gentlemen. The document will be incor- porated into the record. (The document referred to follows:) WATER POLLTJTION BY SEWAGE FROM WATERORAFT . . . ANOTHER VIEWPOINT The issue of Water Pollution by wastes from watercraft has recently become a controversial subject. Some reports have exaggerated and some have belittled the effect of such pollution. It is probably fair to say in any case, that even if the present degree of pollution from watercraft is insignificant compared to pollu- tion from other sources, this type of pollution can cause an undesirable situation in local areas and if not controlled could in time become a significant part of the total water pollution situation, especially if industries and municipalities are successful in their efforts to curtail the pollution they themselves contribute. Therefore, let's support the basic philosophy to taking steps to require that wastes from watercraft shall be controlled but let's be realistic and let's be fair to the various sectors of the community involved: 1. Let's not pass laws just to trade one type of pollution for another of equal severity or merely to change the time or place of the pollution. 2. Let's not discriminate by limiting a particular type of pollution by one sector of the community until it is at least technically feasible and thus foreseeable that other sectors of the community can, in the not too distant future, be required to similarly limit that same type of pollution. 3. Let's be ready to change in response to changing pollution hazards and in response to advancing waste treatment technology. 4. Let's try to stipulate performance requirements that are meaningful. To discuss the specifics of this subject it is probably best to have a general understanding of some of the terms used by technical personnel who work in the field of sewage disposal: PAGENO="0481" 473 COLIFORM COUNT Coliform bacteria live in the human intestinal tract. Literally billions of these bacteria generally are present in a single human stool. The number of these bacteria present in 100 milliliters (a little less than ~ cup) of water is used as a general indication of the probable hazard of dangerous bacteria in the water. The influence to municipal sewage plants~ may have typical counts of mil- lions per 100 ml. Water for swimming is generally kept under the range of 50 to 1000 per 100 ml. Drinking water is generally kept at an average less than one per 100 ml. B.O.D. Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a measure primarily of the amount of organic matter present. It is stated in terms of how much oxygen would be consumed in converting the organic matter to a more oxidized state by natural processes such as bacterial action. The hydrogen (H) and carbon (C) in organic matter is typically converted to water (1120) and carbon dioxide (002) in these proc- esses. The average sewage waste per person seems to have a B.O.D. in the neigh- borhood of .17 lbs. (about 77,000 milligrams) of oxygen per day. In most muni- cipal systems the organic matter is diluted with about 100 gallons (378 liters) of water per person per day so that influents to municipal sewage systems are typically in the range of 200 mg. B.O.D./LITER. Waste with a high B.O.D. dumped into a lake depletes the oxygen in the water of the lake, thereby suffocating fish and natural life in the w.ater. NUTRIENTS The word "nutrients" has a particular meaning to waste treatment specialists. It means a group of chemicals, primarily various phosphates and nitrates, often the same chemicals widely used in fertilizers for farming. These "nutrients" are present in human waste. They become hazardous when dumped in natural waterways because they tend to over-stimulate the growth of algae in the water- way eventually filling the waterway with a green scum, and upsetting the balance of natural life in the water. Most of the controversy regarding waste disposal from watercraft nowadays centers on the question of macerator-chlorinators which chop the wa.ste, treat it chemically, and then dump it back into the water, vs. holding tanks which retain the waste until the boat arrives at a dock-side pump-out station which can transfer the waste to a municipal or other sewage system. Both systems have disadvantages: Macerator-chiorinators require significant electrical power, and require that chemicals be added to the system periodically. Holding tanks require that the boat owner make periodic trips to special docks presently in sparse, if any existence, in order to empty his tank (and pay a Pump-out fee) before it becomes too full or becomes too rancid to be tolerated on his boat. Unfortunately, early models of macerator-chlorinators and some present models didn't chop waste particles fine enough nor treat them strongly enough and publicized information to this effect has left the wrong impression with many people. There is at least one present-day model macerator-chlorinator (the Carlson Mark 6,) which not only does an excellent job of reducing coliform count to an acceptable level, but also obtains about 2A reduction in 13.0.1).! This B.O.D. reduction is about twice as good as most sewage plants in existence. Why? Most sewage plants are presently only primary treatment systems, and they only reduce the influent B.O.D. by about 1/3. There are many secondary treatment systems in existence, which can obtain B.O.D. reductions of around 90%. Hopefully, over the next 5 to 10 years, more and more municipalities will convert to such systems. In the meantime, however, it seems only logical to make sure that local regulations take into account the type of municipal systems dumping into the waterways in question. If primary treatment sewage systems with only 1/3 B.O.D. reduction are going to be dumping into a particular waterway for the next few years, then certainly it is folly to require the use of holding tanks and to prohibit macerator-chlorinators on that waterway for that period of time, because the waste from the holding tanks after pump-out will at best go through the municipal system and return to the water- way with its B.O.D. reductiomì by only 1/3, whereas with a good macerator- chlorinator the B.O.D. could be reduced by % right on the boat. 04-376-6S-------31 PAGENO="0482" 474 It is important in this regard not to get confused regarding B.O.D. concentra- tions. A pound of B.O.D. is a pound of B.O.D. If you take a certain amount of solid organic matter, enough to have a B.O.D. of one pound and throw it into a lake, eventually one pound of oxygen will have to be absorbed from the lake. It does not matter whether you mix the organic matter with one gallon of water or with 100 gallons of water or with no water at all before dumping it in; it still is going to use up one pound of oxygen and the lake "doesn't care" which you do. Understandably, some workers in the waste disposal field are used to thinking of municipal sewage systems where the daily waste from one human is mixed with about 100 gallons of water before it arrives at the sewage plant. A hand pump boat toilet conversely may use only one to three gallons of water to flush the same amount of waste, so the B.O.D. concentrations from the boat without a treatment device may be typically 30 to 100 times as high in terms of mg. B.O.D. per liter of effluent. Some of those workers are dismayed at these higher concentrations and think that somehow or other boats have "more" potential pollution than other sources. It is not so, and it is important therefore, that meaningful terms such as "% reduction in B.O.D." be used in boat water- pollution regulations rather than concentration figures such as milligrams of B.O.D. per liter of effluent. Nutrients (remember Phosphates and Nitrates) are another stumbling block to logical regulations. Nobody wants their lakes full of algae so they say, let's not allow macerator-chlorinators on our lake since macerator-chlorinators do not reduce nutrients. This is a fairly logical approach provided that there are, or soon will be, no sewage systems at all dumping into the lake. But if some sewage treatment systems, particularly the system servicing the dock-side pump-out station eventually return to the lake, this approach is futile! Why? Because even secondary sewage treatment systems do not reduce nutri- ents! Therefore, you do not help the algae situation by requiring holding tanks which are pumped out into a municipal system, if the effluent from that munici- pal system eventually feeds back into the lake. Nutrients, as found in sewage effluents, are primarily in a dissolved condition. So far, there do not seem to be any good commercially available, and economically feasible, systems available for removal of nutrients from municipal sewage. Many experts are working hard on experimental and pilot plants for removing nutrients, but until such systems are at least firmly on the horizon from a commercial standpoint, we should not discriminate against the boat owner by requiring that he dump his nutrients into the lake by way of a holding tank, a pumpout station, and a municipal sewage system. From all the foregoing, we can summarize that modern macerator-chlorinators can do a better job in most cases than holding tanks (the cases where dock- side pump-out sewage goes through at best, a primary treatment municipal system before being returned to the waterway.) In many other cases where the dock-side pump-out would go through a secondary treatment system, they can do almost as good a job as the holding tank, (B.O.D. reduction, of % as com- pared to 9,4o . . . both systems pass nutrients.) Holding tanks logically might be allowed, and macerator-chlorinators prohibited on water bodies where no municipal sewage treatment plant effluents at all are permitted. A word of caution: Free use of typical numerical values for various items have been used throughout this report. Characteristically, the many variables involved in waste treatment cause large scatter in data that is obtained, so that it is not unusual to find individual pieces of data several times as big or several times smaller than the figures mentioned. Waste treatment in general, is a dynamic field these days. Important advances have been made recently and more will undoubtably be made in the near future. We hope laws and regulations will be flexible enough to keep pace with the ad- vancements in technology, yet fair in their requirements of boat owners, fisher- men, swimmers, marina operators, industries, and municipalities. WILLIAM H. SMYERS, Jr., Chief Research Engineer, The New Britain Mac1i~ine Co., New Britain, Conn. (Congressman Olsen indicated he will submit a statement for the record at this point. His statement follows:) PAGENO="0483" 475 STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN ARNOLD OLSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to testify here today in behalf of this important amendment. All of us know that as time progresses our water resources will become a more and more precious commodity. There has been a great deal of public support for improving and perfecting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which becanie law in 1956. I believe the Congress and the press of this country have done an outstanding job in informing all of our citizens of the need for immediate action to reverse the trend toward more and more pollution in our waters. Public demand led to a strengthening of this Act in the 1961 amendments and in the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. I am pleased that the states and Federal government have moved quickly to implement this legislation. I come from a state where citizens are confronted with plentiful water sup- plies in some areas and a shortage of water in others. In areas where water is plentiful and pure the people of Montana appreciate its value and are united behind efforts to maintain the strictest possible water quality controls. And, in areas where there is a shortage of water, the eagerness to conserve and make time best use of our water is equally strong. Perhaps our citizens are fortunate in having had the opportunity to look around the country to areas in which there has been increasing industrial pol- lution on the one hand and rapidly increasing population on the other. They have heard the reports from many parts of our Nation where water consump- tion has had to be rationed. They have witnessed the slow progress of sciemitists searching for a way to make the abundant waters of our oceans fit for consump- tion and they know that no practical solution has been found. As the race con- tinues between an adequate, clean water supply and a growing population, we hear an increasing number of dire J)redietionS of a severe water shortage in the years ahead. And here today we are engaged in a different, though related race. We have made tremendous strides in the industrial and technological development of this Nation but, unfortunately, we have not kept pace in our efforts to control water pollution, a by-product of our rapid industrial advancement. A beginning has been made on all levels of government but all of us know the distance we must go to overcome the damage which has already been done. Today I know I am representing the people of my District and State when I ask my colleagues on this Committee to support these amendments and, to redouble our efforts to assure all of our citizens an adequate, pure supply of water, our most important natural resource. I fully support this amendment to authorize research and demonstration pro- grams for the control of lake pollution, control and prevent mine water drain- age and the prevention of water pollution by oil. Finally, I am hopeful these demonstration and reserach projects will effec- tively combine intensified research with intensified industrial efforts to effec- tively control the sources of pollution in our lakes and streams. Mr. MCCARThY. The next witness is Mr. Robert Canha.m, of the Water Pollution Control Federation. STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. CANHAM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND EDITOR, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION Mr. CANhIA~r. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This statement is made on behalf of the 39 Federal Member Associ- tions in the United States and Puerto Rico. These organizations and others represent approximately 45,000 persons directly concerned with the promotion, management, design, construction, and operation of facilities for the control of water pollution through the proper collec- tion and treatment of domestic and industrial waste waters The fed- eration is vitally interested in all programs concerning the advance- nient of knowledge of water pollution control technology, and the PAGENO="0484" 476 provision and proper operation of the facilities for accomplishing these objectives. It recognizes that these efforts include research, plan- ning, regulation. as well as the formal and informal instruction of those working in the field. The federation has a worldwide reputation as the primary dissemi- nator of technical information in the field through its periodicals and special publications. The federation's statement of policy last approved by the board of control during its annual conference in October 1967 is appended and made a part of this statement. Even a cursory view will indicate the federation'.s deep concern with the proper approach to water pollution control problems. This statement is directed toward certain of the bills before the committee as follows: THE "WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968 ~~-II.R. 15907 This bill makes a frontal attack on the inadequacies of the present Federal Water Pollution Control program. Even though the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 provided for a productive pro- gram, the financial support for that program has not been forthcom- ing and has reduced the rate of municipal water pollution control plant construction much below that anticipated by the act. H.R. 15907 aims to correct this deficiency by longtime Federal financing of the Federal Government's share to overcome the current restrictions on the financial support essential to the success of the program. In deleting the reimbursement part of the construction financing in the 1966 act, it is apparent that the present bill creates a hardship on those communities that have proceeded under the promise of reim- bursement. Other communities that have been encouraged to proceed would then be confused further. These uncertainties and changes would add to the overall tendency toward retarding the program in- stead of providing acceleration. Some of the provisions of this bill fit into the existing framework of financing. For example, charges made to the users of a treatment works have been established by many communities, including that authorized by the Congress in 1954 for the District of Columbia. Such service charges have been found to place the treatment facilities on a utility financing basis, providing funds not only for necessary capital improvements but also for proper operation and maintenance of the system. This is sound financing and it is helping many cities and sani- tary authorities provide proper drainage service for their citizens. It is emphasized that there are other sound and well-established methods of local financing. It also is pointed out that it is desirable for local financing methods to continue to be choices of each municipality. While municipal bonds relieved of their tax-exempt status may be responsible for a higher repayment cost to the municipality, the faith and credit of the Federal Government will tend to offset this, and, hopefully, the final result will not be more expensive to the inunici- pality. However, it seems to reduce greatly the possibility of accelerat- ing construction rates of water pollution control works, and could be another factor contributing to a retarded construction rate. It would seem well to consider the removal of these provisions and leave such a basic change to tax legislation. PAGENO="0485" 477 Estuary study The requirements of this bill are in line with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and they bring into focus the special problems of tidal estuaries. It is pointed out, however, that if control efforts are concentrated on the major sources of deleterious contributions to es- tuaries, that is, pollution control in the freshwater streams feeding the estuaries, surface runoff, and its attendant problems, ground water con- tributing to estuaries and undesirable discharges from sources such as vessels, that the condition of estuaries would be so markedly improved that this need for this type study would be diminished greatly. Plant design and operation-operator certification Finally, the bill would require that the owner of a water pollution control facility operate it to obtain maximum efficiency and that each State participating in the plan would bring its plant operating sur- veillance to a proper level and engage in a program of plant operator certification. These requirements strike at the heart of plant operating needs and the Water Pollution Control Federation has made major contributions to these efforts. For this reason, the federation endorses these provisions with great enthusiasm. By the sheer size of the water pollution control problem, it seems virtually impossible for it to be primarily a Federal program. For this reason, the Federation hopes that maximum use will always be made of the State technical staffs who have worked with this problem devotedly for many years. Full support of the efforts of all States will pay off handsomely in returns for effective control of water pollution in the United States. S. 2760 Lake pollution control provision The intent of subsection (h) of section 5 providing for developing and demonstrating new or improved methods of water pollution con- trol agrees with the general intent of the Water Pollution Control Federation's objectives except that this section of the bill restricts the effort to pollution problems in lakes. It can be pointed out that much of the problem in lakes is caused by the components of the water discharged into them from streams. Therefore it can be argued that if the streams are properly handled there would not be a need to emphasize lake pollution to a discriminatory degree. This is not altogether true in the literal sense because of pollutional and/or nutritional additions from surface runoff in a lake watershed, and there are other factors of course. However, it emphasizes the need to consid~r the overall problem including source, carrier, and receiver, rather than to fragment an effort with concentrated emphasis on one segment even though that segment may not be the weakest or strongest link in the chain. This organization believes that pollution problems including eu- trophication should receive great attention but that the source and streams should receive great attention also. It further believes that lakes that are not already in serious condition can be protected with stronger emphasis directed toward the objective of higher water qual- ity of the water entering lakes which we believe is the underlying intent of the basic act. PAGENO="0486" 478 Acid and other mine water pollution control The acid mine drainage problem is unique and has defied practical solution for many years. Therefore it appears reasonable to violate the generalization discussed above and continue special efforts toward the correction of this special problem. In the general intent this orga- nization supports this portion of the bill. Oil pollution control The overall objective of the oil pollution part of the bill to reduce oil pollution in navigable waters and along shorelines is endorsed. It has been pointed out by many that a control program such as this depends on all sources. Therefore, it is important that control of oil discharges from all foreign vessels be obtained. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION-H.R. 16044 The `Water Pollution Control Federation is dedicated to the im- provement of operation of waste treatment plants as specifically coy- ered in points 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9, of its Statement of Policy. The intent of these points includes: (1) direct responsibility for obtaining the maximum effectiveness of existing and new plants as designed (2) the encouragement of adequate financing and the use of the most prac- tical means of financing (3) the development of new and more effec- tive methods of treatment (4) adequate public and administrative support which will result in continuous efforts to maintain full staffs in treatment works, and (5) the strong support of mandatory certifi- cation of operating personnel so that maximum effectiveness of treat- ment facilities can be realized. It is believed that the intent of J-1.R. 16044 fits in general certain of the objectives of this organization although the statement of policy is designed to encourage broad efforts to take advantage of all op- portunities to improve treatment efficiencies. H.R. 16044 in its selec- tion of chemical treatment methods tends to discriminate against other approaches such as biological and physical methods, in which areas much development work is well underway and in use. If the provisions of the bill were broadened to encourage assistance for all approaches toward more efficient methods of treatment it would agree more closely with the intent of the federation's statement of policy, as well as meeting the water quality standards. Subsection (h) of section 5 of S. 2760 makes provision for proce- dures to investigate and demonstrate improved methods of treatment without specifications as to the method of approach. It appears that in this respect both H.R. 16044 and S. 2760 are attempting to reach the same objective but with differing emphasis on the time frame of reference and S. 2760 is limited to lake pollution. It is believed that time objectives of this part of 5. 2760 have not as yet been achieved. THE OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 106 8- H.R. 15906 Since the intent of the bill agrees with that in the oil pollution con- trol section of S. 2760, the comments remain the same as for S. 2760 above; i.e., general support. PAGENO="0487" 479 VESSEL POLLUTION OONTROL-H.R. 7234~ H.R. 13923~ H.R. 16207 In recognition of the continuing and growing problems created by discharges from vessels additional correction efforts are needed. There- fore, without qualifying the details of the bill this organization sup- ports its intent. You have the appreciation of the federation fQr the privilege of submitting this statement. We stand ready to amplify these remarks or answer questions within our field of activity at any time. * Mr. McCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Canham, for that very compre- hensive analysis of the bills before us. It makes an excellent summary, and we appreciate your thoughtful consideration Qf these bills and views of your organization have certainly been a major contributor to the war on pollution representing 45,000 people. So on behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much. (The statement of policy on water pollution control referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF POLICY ON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, IN THE UNITED STATES- ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERA- TION, OCTOBER 8, 1907 (This Statement of Policy was adopted originally in 1900. Since then, revisions have been made to keep abreast of expansion and changes in the water pollution control field.) Pollution of the Nation's inland surface waters, coastal waters, and ground- waters is a continuing threat to the national health, aesthetic enjoyment, safety, and economic welfare. National survival, in terms of future urban, industrial, and commercial growth and prosperity, dictates the protection of all water re- sources from any acts, such as the discharging of harmful substances which cause unreasonable impairment of water quality and adversely affect their highest level of usefulness. While considerable progress has been made in pollu- tion control by municipalities and industries, many water resources are being degraded, impaired, and damaged by such discharges and acts, and they will be further adversely affected by the degree and pattern of population growth, in- dustrial processing, commercial expansion, chemical usages, agricultural develop- nients, and other technological advancements. The Water Pollution Control Federation is pledged to provide leadership and guidance to all constructive efforts which contribute to the control of water pollu- tion. Its pledge is summarized by the following points. 1. The discharge of all wastewater into the waters of the Nation must be controlled. 2. The objectives of water pollution control must include preservation of high quality waters for protection of public health; for industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses; for fish and wildlife propagation; and for the maintenance of an aesthetically desirable environment. 3. The responsibilities for the adequate treatment and control of wastewater must be assumed individually and jointly by industry and local, state, interstate, and federal governments. 4. The administration of water pollution control must be firm and effective and should remain in the hands of state and interstate water pollution control agencies. Regulatory agencies must be supported by adequate budgets and fully staffed by competent engineers, scientists, and other personnel. 5. Federal, state, and local laws and practices must reflect the changing needs in order to obtain and maintain the most economical and effective means for financing the construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment works. 0. The public must be made fully aware of the consequences of water pollution and the costs of its control. Only in this way can the public be prepared to sponsor and support sound water pollution control measures. PAGENO="0488" 480 7. Baaic'and applied tesearch by competent personnel niust be encouraged by broad efforts to develop new knowledge that will solve water pollution problems. 8. Wastewater represents ati increasing fraction of the Nation's total water resources and should be, reclaimed for beneficial reuse. To this end the develop- ment and application of methods for wastewater reclamation must be acceler- a ted. 9. Mandatory certification or licensing of adequately trained and properly compensated personnel must be encouraged as a requirement for maximum effectiveness of treatment facilities. The Water Pollution Control Federation was established in 1928 as a non- profit, `technical membership organization. Its objectives are to advance the fundamental and practical knowledge of all aspects of water pollution control by the dissemination of technical knowledge through publications, technical conferences, improvement of the professional status of those engaged in the field, promotion of public understanding and participation, and encouragement of the adoption and implementation of sound regulations aimed toward effective water pollution control. The more than 16,000 member-subscribers in more than 79 countries throughout the world receive the JOURNAL and HIGHLIGHTS on a monthly basis. Member associations represent Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Sweden, Switzerland, United King- dom, Venezuela, and all of the 50 United States. Publishers of: Journal Water Pollution Control Federation Quarterly Research Supplement to Journal Water Pollution Control Federa- tion Highlights Manuals of Practice Operator Training Aids Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Water Pollution Re- search Other Special Publications For further information contact: Water Pollution Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Ave., Washington, D.C. 20016-Telephone: (202) 362-4100. STATEMENTS FOR TIlE RECORD Mr. MCCARTHY. We have for the record here a statement by our colleague, the Honorable Seymour Halpern. For the record, a letter from the Sport Fishing Institute' dated 4pril 22, 1968, signed by Philip A. Douglas, executive secretary. For the record, a covering letter from the Hollorable Silvio 0. Conte dated April 22, 1968, with attached documents. For the record, a letter from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health signed by Frank Rozich, technical secretary, Water Pollution Control Commission, dated April 22, 1968. For the record, a covering letter from the Consulting Engineers Council of New York State, Inc., signed by Harold E. Rist, C.E.C., president, dated April 18, 1968, with accompanying document. For the record, a letter from the Missouri Water Pollution Board, signed by Jack K. Smith, executive secretary, dated April 23, 1968. For the record, a covering letter from the Honorable Sam Steiger dated April 24, 1968, with accompanying letter bearing the letterhead of the City of Phoenix, Ariz., dated April 22, 1968. Finally for the record, a letter from Hon. John M. Zwach dated April 22, 1968. (The documents referred to above follow:) PAGENO="0489" 481 STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK OIL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, the fouling of our seas and shores by oil from sinking tankers is a problem that can brook no further delay. We in Congress have an obligation to provide immediately for effective machinery and ready procedures to combat oil pollution as quickly as potential disasters appear. There can be no excuse for waiting until catastrophe strikes, and tons of thick, black, stinking sludge cover hundreds of miles of our vacation beaches, kill our coastal wildlife and disrupt our fishing industry. We have already been shown ample proof of the hazard on the coast of England, and Puerto Rico. Last January, I was proud to have joined with my able colleague from Massa- chusetts, Mr. Keith, in introducing the original bill, H.R. 14852, to fight the oil pollution menace. Since then, the Administration has responded with proposals of its own, which of course, I welcome. However, I again joined with Mr. Keith in introducing our present bill, HR. 10559, which goes even further, and greatly strengthens the Administration's proposals. We have sought to stiffen the Administration bill in two ways. First, we feel that the delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Interior to the Coast Guard for the physical handling of pollution countermeasures should be specifi- cally spelled out. While such intent is stated by the Administration bill, and while it is quite likely that the necessary arrangements may be made between the two agencies, under the terms of HR. 15900 as written, we still feel that the more precise language offered in our bill is useful. The second, and more important, change we are urging is to expand the area in which the Secretary may take action to prevent or ameliorate oil pollution disasters. The Administration proposal would confer jurisdiction within the contiguous zone, which, at maximum, represents a 12-mile ribbon around our coastline. Inasmuch as time and tide, and I would add wind and wave, wait for no man, it seems imperative to expand the area within which the Secretary may act. This is accomplished in our bill by allowing such action in cases of discharges on the high seas outside the contiguous zone, "if such matter may adversely affect the navigable waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone, or if such matter threatens damage to valuable resources on or above the Continental Shelf." We must expect that circumstances will sometimes dictate that action be taken at distances greater than 12 miles from our beaches. Conditions of storm, or simply prevailing currents might make a discharge some distance beyond the 12 mile zone as great an ecological threat as a discharge within the contiguous zone. The 12 mile limit of the contiguous zone is an arbitrary figure which has little relationship to the potential damage caused by an oil slick. The legislation which the Congress approves should provide the flexibility, to deal with this fact. With these changes, Mr. Chairman, the proposal before your committee will become a more effective tool in the work providing a wholesome, livable envi- ronment. This Committee has already performed a yeoman task in dealing with previous encroachments upon environmental quality. I commend you for your efforts. I will not take the time of this Committee to relate the incidents which have occurred in recent years which point up the need for this legislation. You will hear mentioned frequently during this hearing the Torrey Canyon, the Ocean Eagle, and others. The tragic loss of wildlife and the extensive loss of tourist dollars will be detailed too, I am sure. I feel, however, that this Committee is aware of the need for this legislation and is seeking only to find the language which best meets the problems posed by oil pollution. In the past the degradation and pollution of portions of the environment has coincided with the intensive use of that portions. In the case of the oceans we appear ready to break with that established pattern. Now, we stand an excel- lent chance of seriously degrading the seas before we come to understand the values, the secrets and the resources which they contain. Our capabilities for de- struction now exceed our abilities to utilize the ocean. PAGENO="0490" 482 I urge prompt action to insure that those capabilities for destruction are not allowed free rein. Mr. Chairman, I request of the Committee prompt and favorable action to reduce the threat of oil pollution to the ocean area. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, THE NATIONAL NON-PROFIT FISH CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1968. Re H.R. 15907 "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, relating to the construction of waste treatment works, and to the conduct of Water Pollution Control Research, and for other purposes." Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, Capitol Building, Washingt on, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: The Sport Fishing Institute regrets not being able to personally present this testimony. We have been vitally concerned, however, with the enactment of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 which did establish a four year matching grant construction program of some $3.4 billion in authori- zation to aid the major municipalities and metropolitan areas finance their sewage treatment facilities, at least to the secondary treatment stage. We were grossly disappointed by the subsequent Congressional action which only appro- priated $203 million for the current fiscal year instead of the $450 million as established by P.L. 89-753, later amended on your strong insistance to $225 million. Mr. Chairman, we can see nothing but trouble and frustration ahead if the Federal Government does not assume a strong and extremely active leadership role in helping the Nation get up on its feet in cleaning up the tremendous backlog of needed waste treatment construction as well as keep up with the present and plan adequately for the future. We are already encountering new forms of pollution, such as that caused by the newer greatly enlarged electric generating power stations, both fossil and nuclear fueled, wherein tremendous volumes of water are heated up as high as 143~ F! If we don't catch up or at least keep abreast with the treatment of much of our industrial, municipal, and human wastes it may well be that, we are writing off all of our aquatic natural resources. Our Board of Directors have been greatly concerned with the apathy of the Congress in meeting its authorization obligations through proper appro- priations in this restoration program. They passed unanimously the following resolution: APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESTORATION OF CLEAN WATER Whereas the Congress did pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-753) authorizing waste-treatment plant Construction Grants-in-Aid to the states totalling $3.6 billion over a five-year period with the first year's authoriza- tion amounting to $450 million for fiscal year 1968; and Whereas the Administration has requested only $203 million in its fiscal year 1968 budget for the entire United States, which is less than half the minimum amount needed in fiscal year 1968, and the City of New York, alone, would legally qualify for about $90 million in justifiable federal aid matching grants for construction of needed waste treatment plans during fiscal year 1968, thereby utilizing nearly half of all the federal funds that would be available under the Administration's reduced funding proposals: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Sport Fishing Institute, as- sembled in regular Annual Meeting this 18th day of May, 1967, at Louisville, Kentucky, do herewith urge the Appropriations Committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and all Members of the Congress to take whatever action is needed to add sufficient funds to the Administration's re- quested budget in order to provide the full $4~0 million authorized for appro- priation in fiscal year 1968 and which are badly needed to meet the funding schedule already determined by the Congress to be the minimum that will be needed to get the country started on a significant nationwide Clean Water program. PAGENO="0491" 483 S. 3206 does envision a realistic approach to the problem-funding. By setting up 30 year interest-free loans available to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical areas and those population areas of at least 125,000 the contractural obligations could be more easily met by that public agency, which needs this federal money so desperately. I will not belabor the point of this need. The Nation is pretty well informed on the tremendous task ahead of it. The cities have the very dis- rupting problem of; separating storm and sanitary sewers; developing the essen- tial technology and sophistication of methods to handle the myriad of chemicals now being introduced into our waters as waste effluents; treating the tremendous amounts of waste caused by an ever-expanding human population; and too, solving the aforementioned problems involving thermal pollution. Mr. Chairman, it behooves this government to step in and take hold of the reins and guide the efforts of the United States toward these solutions and to maintain ceaseless vigilence over all of our waste discharges. The five steps that would be authorized in H.R. 15007 to fund the financial requirements of the borrowing municipalities, and other areas eligible to receive such funds, would provide a ways and means of alleviating much of the funding burden that is so painfully evident to our own government in the Vietnam situation. We have seen estimates of the cost of making our waterways clean again amount to $20 billion. The $3.4 billion that had been set up to be spent through fiscal year 1971 must be appropriated to enable us to see the light of day in this tremendous task ahead of us. Too, we appreciate the extension of time allotted for the estuarine study as covered by the Section 5(a) amendment, as well as the provisions for research and training that are contained in Section 6. In Sec- tion 5(c) (3) may we suggest the word conservation to replace "preservation," so that part (3) reads: "Recommendations for comprehensive national program for the conservation study, use, and development of estuaries of the nation, and the respective responsibility which should be assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public and private interests." The word "preservation" to us means more of the sanctuary connotation that could mean such areas would remain inviolate to any human visitation. We feel that conservation, which pro- vides for a wise use program of our renewable natural resources, is by far the better designation in this situation. The Sport Fishing Institute wishes to go on record as solidly behind the intent and purposes of H.R. 15907 as being in the greatest public interest to America, with consideration given our suggestions, noted above, as strengthening measures. Sincerely, PHILIP A. DOUGLAS, Executive Secretary. POSITION OF MASSACHUSETTS DIvISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ON THE "WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968" CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H~ FALLON, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN FALLON: Enclosed is a copy of a letter and statement I re- ceived from the Director of the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Con- trol expressing his opposition to several features of H.R. 15907, which I under- stand is scheduled for hearings this week. Mr. McMahon has requested that I forward his position to you and requests that it be given every consideration by the Committee. With my very best wishes, I am Cordially yours, SILvI0 0. CONTE, Member of Congress. [Enclosures.] PAGENO="0492" 484 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, WATER RESOURCES CoMMISSIoN, Boston, April 15, 1968. ~CONGRESSMAN SILvIo 0. CONTE, house Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONTE: In recognition of your interest and desire to see a continuing and progressive Water pollution control program in Massachusetts I am calling your attention to two proposed bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These bills are HR 15907 and S 3206 and are virtually similar. An analysis of HR 15907 is enclosed for your information and interest. This bill in our opinion has many disturbing features which Will adversely affect the timely construction of waste treatment facilities in the Commonwealth and coin- pletely disrupt the implementation schedules already promulgated as required by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965. In order to properly convey our concern over the ramifications of these bills I would suggest contacting the following prior to April 25, 1968: Congressman George A. Fallon, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, 2165 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. 20034; and Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution Control, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. HR 15907 has been analyzed by representatives of the Connecticut Water Re- sources Commission, the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Com- mission and other neighboring States with general concurrence as to the serious potential problems that may occur by passage of this pending legislation in its present form. We would be most appreciative of any assitance or advice that you can provide on this matter in order to provide the proper legislative direction for solving the water pollution problem on a unified, equitable and efficient basis. Very truly yours, THOMAS C. MCMAHON, Director. APRIL 12, 1968. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT This evaluation is written in order to express the Massachusetts Divisions of Water Pollution Control's concern with HR 15907 and S 3206, similar bills to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act presently being considered by the Congress of the United States. These bills would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to: 1. Enter into contracts with local public bodies to allow the United States to make payments on the portion of principal and interest costs to cover the applicable Federal share of contribution costs of eligible waste treat- ment works over a period not to exceed 30 years; 2. make payments on the non-Federal share which would reduce the net effective interest rate to States and localities to a rate reasonably compar- able to rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds; 3. provide that, before entering into contracts for each project under this new subsection, the Secretary must first satisfy himself that the project serves either all of a standard metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Budget, or an area of 125,000 people or more, or a por- tion of a standard metropolitan statistical area. The Secretary must also be assured that a local public body having jurisdiction over the project has or will establish a system of charges designed to amortize the cost of the project and the cost of operating and maintaining the project over its life and to provide a necessary reserve fund; 4. amend Section 8(d) of the Act. The amendments would continue the current level of appropriation authorizations for construction grants for PAGENO="0493" 485 fiscal years 1909, 1970 and 1971. It would also authorize appropriations for an indefinite number of fiscal years to liquidate contracts under the new Section 8(f) 5. provide that the aggregate amount of contracts in any one year shall not exceed 10 percent of the aggregate principal sum available for such contracts in any one State; These bills would also: 6. Amend the reimbursement provision in the Act added in 1966. This pro- vision would allow a State to proceed with their approved project and be reimbursed up to the normal Federal share if Federal funds become avail- able at a later date. The proposal would cut this authority off as of July 1,1968; 7. Require the State to initiate an effective operator certification program approved by the Secretary by July 1, 1970. They would also require the State to develop by July 1, 1969, an approvable statewide plan to improve the effi- ciency of treatment works constructed prior to July 1, 1968, and operating since that date. These last two features are conditions for assistance for the grant and contract program; 8. Extend the general research, demonstration training and information authorities beyond June 30, 1969 and consolidate the comprehensive estu- aries study provision of the Act. In order to properly evaluate the ramifications of this bill, a brief review of the Massachusetts program should be made. Since the passage of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted one of the most comprehensive water pollution control programs in the nation, featuring a $150 million State Grants Program, a new Division of Water Pollu- tion Control in the Department of Natural Resources, two industrial waste treat- ment tax incentive laws, one million dollars a year for research and training, and broad authority for enforcing the provisions of the Clean Waters Act. Water Quality Standards have been adopted and approved for the entire State, and the Division has instituted and scheduled an aggressive and comprehensive waste treatment construction program tailored to the financial support auth- orized by the Clean Waters Restoration Act. Following cut-backs in Federal ap- propriations in FY 1968, a pre-financing clause was passed by the Massachusetts Legislature to allow us to advance the Federal share on eligible projects in order to preserve the integrity of the schedules set forth in our implementation program. This pending Federal legislation (HR 15907) and (5 3206) appears to offer several serious deficiencies that would certainly delay and conceivably cripple the efforts of the Common~tealth's water pollution abatement program. Several of these are enumerated as follows: 1. Under HR 15907 and 5 3206 the Federal reimbursement provisions are discontinued July 1, 1968. To maintain the present Federal grant appropria- tions and at the same time eliminate the reimbursement provision will re- duce the level of construction far below what is required in the State's implementation schedule and serve to lengthen the time period for water quality enhancement of our rivers and streams. 2. The larger communities will be at a disadvantage under the contract provisions because of the method of reimbursement using non-tax exempt bonds contrasted with a smaller community that may receive grants. This constitutes a serious problem as to the equitability between large and small community financing. The appropriation levels are also not specified in the Act and therefore makes it difficult to plan for specified projects on a year- to-year basis. 3. The fact that no state may get more than 10 percent of the total amount of available funds for cOntracts obviOusly is disproportionate as the magnitude of State problems vary considerably, and there is no assurance that the more seriou~ problems will be rectified on a priority basis. The ear- her method of allocations on a population and income basis with State prior- ity schedules certainly appears to be a better approach. 4. The section providing for the local public body to establish a necessary reserve fund is not allowable under the Massachusetts General Laws. 5. The State would certainly agree an operator certification program Is a necessary ingredient to an effective water quality control program. At the PAGENO="0494" 486 present time there is a bill for a mandatory Operator Certification Program in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The effective data for this *however is July 1, 1971, which, in our opinion is the earliest we can promote an effective certification program which will include re-training existing op- erators and instituting a one-year school for inducing new personnel in the operation of waste treatment plant programs. 6. Under the presently anticipated grants for FY 1969 there is some $225 million authorized for construction grants. HR 15907 proposes a research and development program for $125 million a year on a continuing basis. It certainly would appear that the proportionate amounts for construction grants for waste treatment facilities compared to the amounts being pro- posed for research is grossly imbalanced. Our State recognizes the needs for continuation of the on-going research and demonstration program but not at a level that is almost 60 percent of the authorized construction levels. 7. The proposed legislation would eliminate the provision in the existing Act that one of the Federal regional water pollution control laboratories shall be located in the Northeastern `area of the United States. It is our understanding that under the present Act, the site for this laboratory was selected and the final plans prepared for the laboratory to be located in the Boston area. 8. The bills do not recommend how much money will be authorized for construction grants or for contracts making it impossible for the States to plan projects in advance and, of course as earlier mentioned, destroys the present implementation schedules required by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965. We would offer the alternative of continuation of the program proposed in the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 with increased authorizations for construction grants as a far more suitable method for attacking water pollution in a broad, equitable and efficient manner. Alteration of the financial methods of assistance to communities can only negate many of `the good features of our State program and rescind many of the pro- gressive provisions of earlier amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act. As a person extremely interested in the Massachusetts program any assistance or advice that you can provide on this matter will be greatly appreciated. TIiO~rAs C. MOMAHON, Director. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBliC HEALTH, 4210 East 11th Avenue, Denver, Cob,, April 22, 1P68. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Colorado wishes to lend its support to HR. 16044 "A Bill to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to Authorize Certain Grants for Assisting in Improved Operation of Waste Treatment Plants". Many com- munities in Colorado are presently planning the construction of metropolitan waste treatment facilities or the improvement of present treatment facilities, consequently they are reluctant to spend monies on present facilities until they know how these facilities will fit into a long-range plan. As a result, they are not getting the best in operational efficiency from these existing treatment plants. ~Te feel that H.R. 16044 would provide the stimulus for upgrading the per- formance of existing plants, thereby achieving measurable improvements in water quality, substantially in advance of the time when treatment plant modifications or additions can be constructed to attain the full degree of per- formance that may be required. We also feel that the assistance to communities offered under this bill would encourage these communities to explore the use of proven new methods of treatment with which to achieve a substantial improve- ment of their effluent quality. We therefore encourage your support of this bill. Very truly yours, FRANK Rozicir, P.E., Technical Secretary, Water Pollution Control Commission. PAGENO="0495" 487 CONSUlTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF NEW Yoiut STATE, INC., Glens Falls, N.Y., April 18, 1968. Re: H.R. 15907; Senate 3206. Hon. ROBERT E. JONES, Coagressm~an, The House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: The two Bills referred to above propose: "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended relating to the construction of waste treatment works, and to the conduct of water pollution control research and for other purposes". New York State has moved ahead rapidly in the field of water pollution abate- ment and has already established a number of working procedures based on the existing federal statutes with state statutes coordinated to the present federal law. It is, therefore, unfortunate that this amendment which may be beneficial in some states, has a serious determining effect on the continuance of New York State's Pure Waters Program. Attached for your review is a statement of the provisions which would af- fect our State adversely. We feel that the proposed statute can be revised so as to complement and improve the existing Federal Statute without injury to New York State's on- going pollution abatement program. Your assistance iii making these revisions is earnestly solicited. Very truly yours, HAROLD E. RIsT, C.E.C., Presiclen t. [Enclosure.] INFORMATION CONCERNING FEDERAL PROGRAM The President recently announced publicly, and the Secretary of the Interior presented to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a Federal program proposing to substantially change the existing construction grants program auth- orized under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL89-753, as amended. HR15907 was introduced on March 12, 1968 for enactment. The more impor- tant provisions of this Bill, as regards municipal projects in New York State, are as follows: (a) Projects on which construction is initiated after July 1, 1968 would no longer be eligible for reimbursement to the full Federal share of 50 or 55%. (b) The Department of the Interior would contract with municipalties, or plant service areas, over 125,000 in population (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Federal Bureau of the Budget) for the 55% Federal share. This share would be paid annually by debt service payments (principal and interest), and would guarantee the non-Federal share. The municipality's bonding arrangements would be specified and sub- ject to approval. Bonds would not be tax exempt. One State could not receive more than 10% of the national appropriation, and there is no assurance that New York State could qualify for the maximum 10%. The FY-69 appro- priation for this debt service contract provision i~ proposed at $475 million. Since the average rate for only the City of New York appears to average $50 million or more annually, it appears that the plan and the programmed annual funding will not provide sufficient funds for State of New York projects. (c) A sewer use charge is required which "will be adequate to enable it to be operated in a businesslike manner capable of amorti~ing treatment works costs, together with operation and maintenance costs, and a reserve to meet to the greatest extent possible, expansion or replacement requirements of the treatment works service area". Italics added for emphasis. (d) For municipalities under 125,000 population, the existing grant pro- gram would still be applicable (with the exception of the reimbursement clause), with an FY-69 proposed appropriation of only $225 million, or only $16,839,000 for State of New York projects. For FY-69, for Federal financing to the full Federal share of 50 or 55% programmed State of New York projects could use more than the total national amount of $225,000,000, Instead of only $16,839,090. (e) Because of the lack of available funds, it appears that strict adherence to a priority system will be required by the Federal government. The con- sequences on the State of New York Pure Waters Program are obvious. PAGENO="0496" 488 The Senate Bill 3206 has been introduced also, and is identical with the House Bill 15907. Hearings on the Senate Bill are scheduled to be held on April 9, 10 and 11. Note these days. Hearings on the House Bill are tentatively scheduled for April 23, 24 and 25. MISSOURI WATER POLLUTION BOARD, TIlE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Jefferson City, Mo., April 23, 1968. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Congress of the United States, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I have reviewed H.R. 16044 which was introduced in the House of Representa- tives on March 19, 1968. I wish to express my personal opinion of this bill. Our Board has not bad an opportunity to discuss the merits of the bill. The Board will meet on May 16, 1968 and it will be presented to them at that time. Since hearings will be held April 23-25 I felt that* it was advisable to give you my personal views on the bill. I think the bill has merit and there is a need to emphasize the importance of improving the operation of existing waste treatment facilities. This bill cer- tainly would encourage improved operation and it is believed that a great deal of pollution abatement can be achieved through enactment of this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. JACK K. S~rITH, Executive Secretary, Missouri Water Pollution Board. POSITION OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA ON THE "WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1068" CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 24, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON Chairman, House Public Works Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DI6AR CHAIRMAN FALL0N: Enclosed is a letter just received from the Mayor of the City of Phoenix regarding HR 15907. I understand that hearings are scheduled to start tomorrow. The points be made are very pertinent, it appears. Certaining the financing section comments, I hope, will be considered closely. It would be appreciated if HR 15907 could be considered in light of the state- ments made by the Honorable Milt Graham. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, SAM STEIGER. CITY OF PHOENIX, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Phoenice, Ariz., April 22, 1968. Hon. SAM STEIGER, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dsan SAM: The City of Phoenix has reviewed copies of HR-15907 and its com- panion bill S-3206 recently introduced in the 90th Congress. We are concerned about several provisions in these Bills which we would like to bring to your attention. It is our understanding that the Senate Sub-Committee on Air and Water Pollution Control has conducted hearings on S-3206 on April 9, 10, and 11, 1968 and that hearings on HR-15907 are scheduled for April 25, 1968. HR-15907 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in several ways and while the intentions are to be commended in general, the methods used to accomplish the purposes are not consistent with the interests of the City of Phoenix. Certain proposed Amednments would enable the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with municipalities for the purpose of making a Federal PAGENO="0497" 489 Water Pollution Control Act Grant on the basis of a 30-year payback instead of a one-time payment. This plan has been given much prior publicity and it is heralded as a means to achieve more mileage out of Federal Grant money, thereby placing the Pollution Control Program on schedule. Federal Funds used to pay off 30-year contractual obligations would be limited to 10 percent of a State's allocation and would apply only to those that serve 125,000 people or more. In order to qualify for this grant, however, the local public body must estab- lish a system of sewer service charges to recover operation aiid maintenance costs, a reserve, and plant amortization costs. While this method is used in many of the nation's cities and it can be shown to be a sound method of financing, it certainly is not the only sound method of financing. We believe that the method of financing such programs is, and should continue to be, a local problemmi and decision. Furthermore, it is our opinion that such a control is not needed. The establishment and imposition of State water quality standards, approved by the Secretary, is adequate control to assure continued efficient plant operation. We are greatly concerned that the Bill would eliminate the tax exemption feature on municipal bonds issued for waste treatment purposes. This Provision seems to contradict the intent of accelerating the pollution abatement program, in that it will result in a higher cost to municipalities and make less money available. Secion 5, of H.R. 15907, concerns itself with comprehensive studies of estu- aries. These studies would determine the effects of pollution on almost the total environment and resources of estuarine zones of the United States, including fish and wildlife, sport and commercial fishing, recreation, water supply and water power, and exploitation of mineral resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, navigation, flood and erosion control and other uses. In our opinion, the "effects of 1)OllUtiofl" on most of these disciplines is adequately known. The extensive studies, however, appear to go far beyond the scope of a `Pollution Control" Bill. There is general agreement that the funding of pollu- tion abatement programs in the United States is inadequate, and. the "in depth" studies proposed by this Bill w-ould weaken this effort from the standpoint of funds alone. If pollution were non-existent in the country's estuaries, the devel- opment and exploitation of the potential of estuaries would still be a complex problem. We believe, however, that this program is not within the scope or objectives of pollution control efforts. It appears that this proposed pollution legislation makes things too comnpli- cated and has too many strings tied to its provisions. This tends to confuse the program and will further slow down efforts to construct needed projects. There- fore, we feel that this proposed legislation should not be enacted and the present law retained and given an opportunity to be carried out effectively. Very truly yours, Milt MILT GRAHAM, Mayor. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLOW, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Rayburn Bwilding. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: As the author of H.R. 13407, which is a companion bill to HR 12759, I have a great deal of interest in the immediate passage of this legislation. Of the 100,000 lakes in our Nation, Minnesota has over 14,000 of ten acres or more in size. These lakes are and can be a great resource in the future of our Nation and my own State. As you know, lakes are not self cleaning, and, following each rain tons of debris or fertilizer may be washed into these lakes, only to settle to the bottom. Further decomposition on the bottom tends to make the lakes shallow, thus leading to a warming of the water temperature. Additional food nutrients and 94-376-GS-----32 PAGENO="0498" 490 warmer conditions provide the most lush of growing conditions for aquatic vegetation. This leads to the further growth of the problem, and a magnification of the settlement problem as such plants also decay and may settle to the bottom. This increased vegetation tends to deplete the lake of the vital oxygen needed by the more sporty and desirable of our fish species. We have little time left to learn the most efficient methods of preserving and cleaning such lakes if we are to make these resources available to an ever larger and more mobile population. This bill authorizes several experimental tests using public and private resources on public lakes to test and develop those recom- mendations to keep our lakes clean and healthy. Therefore, I urge favorable action by your Committee on this legislation. Sincerely yours, JOHN M. ZWAOH, Congre8sman. Mr. MCCARTHY. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. (`Whereupon, at 1 o'clock p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. BLATNIK. The House Public `Works Committee will please come to order, resuming public hearings on various bills which are already listed in the record, suggesting amendments and additions to the Federal W'ater Pollution Control Act. `We have my friend and respected colleague from California, Congressman Charles M. Tcague who has twice given up his-would you call it-batting order, to yield to those who come from some distance to be here. Congressman, we appreciate your usual courtesy and kindness and consideration of others, and we appreciate your coming back again at the convenience of the committee. Do you have a prepared statement, Congressman? You may proceed as you wish. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted for the record a written statement covering sev- eral points. I will highlight those points, and I do request permission that my complete statement will be included as part of the printed record. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Prepared statement follows:) TEsTIMoNY BY CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for providing me with an opportunity to testify on the subject of oil pollution and measures relating to the control and disposal of oil pollutants. I am particularly grateful for this oppor- tunity since the District I represent in California has approximately two hundred miles of shoreline which will be affected by this legislation. There is very active off-shore oil exploration and production in progress along that shoreline. It is my considered belief that two Bills presently before the Committee, H.R. 15900 and the Senate passed Bill, S. 2760, should be considered together and PAGENO="0499" 491 eventually modified and combined into one "Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substance Control Act". Most important is the inclusion of a "trust fund or insurance" section. THREE AREAS OF LAW Unfortunately, in their present forms neither of these pieces of proposed legislation adequately addresses itself to the complex issues which must be con- sidered before comprehensive guidelines and areas of responsibility can be set forth. Not the least of the complex issues which must first be reconciled is the fact that there are three different areas of Law which bear heavily on the establishment of liabilities and the enforcement of legal decisions: International Law, Admiralty Law, and Statutory and Common Law. As far as International Law is concerned, the United States is a signatory to the Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of Seas by Oil and the Con- vention for the Contiguous Zone. Both Conventions affect the discharge of oil and the associated liabilities. Admiralty Law is of particular concern in light of the Limitations of Liability Act of 1851, as amended. This Act was passed at a time when Congress was attempting to encourage the development of United States maritime commercial activities. Its provisions regarding liability are somewhat permissive and are contrary to the intent of oil pollution legislation being considered by this Committee. Lastly, and equally important, is normal Statutory and Common Law, which outlines three types of liability (based on negligence) having a profound effect on the effectiveness of oil pollution laws. Any Bill which is agreed upon by the Committee must insure compatibility between these three areas of Law. Otherwise, when it comes time to decide Oil Pollution cases, the Courts may have their hands tied because of contradic- tory legal concepts. As an example, under Admiralty Law the community which suffers from damages caused by oil discharged from a vessel must wait for higher priority liens to be adjusted before it can collect damages. Since a Sea- man's wages are first priority, and both H.R. 15906 and S. 2760 limit liability to the value of the vessel (to actions in rem) then there may never be any money left to pay for losses incurred by the community-or residents and property owners thereof. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This points up another issue, which should be resolved by the Committee. Since these Bills are designed to assist communities which may suffer damage from pollution by oil or other matter, then it seems that the intent of the law would be overshadowed by the limitation of liability which accompanies actions in rem. It is my contention that actions in personum should not be precluded from the options available to potential plaintiffs. Therefore, I hope that the Committee Bill will clearly indicate that liens can be recovered either by actions against the ship or against the owner. GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATION Another matter of equal or possibly greater concern is the insufficient geograph- ical area covered by either Bill. S. 2760 simply applies to incidents occurring within the 3 mile limit. And, since there are now Federally leased off-shore drilling sites in operation beyond 5 miles from the shoreline of Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, California, the Senate Bill would be ineffective when dealing with incidents occurring beyond 3 miles from the shoreline. As for H.R. 15906, since it only deals with the contiguous zone, (that area between 3 and 12 miles out) rights to collect for damages suffered within the 3 mile limit are ill defined and possibly non-existent. I hope that the Committee clearly specifics a zone which ewtends 50 miles from the shore. These considerations are in addition to the fact that H.R. 15906 does not have any provision for removing oil which was discharged into the contiguous zone and has drifted into the territorial waters. Also, the fact that HR. 15906 does not clearly include off-shore drilling facilities when It is assigning liability for oil discharges, again points to the need for a carefully drafted Committee Bill which protects shoreline communities and owners of real and personal property therein or nearby. PAGENO="0500" 492 PROPERTY PROTECTION With over 000 million dollars Worth of recent off-shore' oil leases let off the coast of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California, it is especially worri- some that there is absolutely no provision for protecting shorelines and public and private property against oil pollution occurring from drilling facilities lo- cated beyond the 3 mile limit. And, even if shorelines were protected, there is no provision in either Bill regarding the inclusion of boats, marinas, other sea- side structures and homes as part of the shoreline definition or adjacent areas which could very well be damaged. Many shoreline communities, like Santa Bar- bara, depend on tourist trade and resort income for a substantial portion of their yearly earnings. Therefore, it is vitally important that such property rights be protected under the Law. ACT5 OF GOD Another issue which must be resolved concerns the recovery of losses due to damages from oil pollution which have occurred as a result of an Act of God. Although both Bills correctly do not attempt to place liability on those not responsible where there is an Act of God, neither do they provide for damages Or for any measures to remove oil or other matter which has been discharged as a result of an Act of God. In the same vein, there is no provision for removal of the damaging agent when the source of the oil pollution cannot be identified or in other instances when owners or operators are not responsible by Law. Thus, I urge that a section covering this particular issue be included in the Conimnittee's Bill. The section might read as follows: Should the owner or operator of a ves- sel, shore installation or offshore drilling facility not be required by Law- to act, as in the case of a derelict ship or Acts of flod, or the source of pollution can- not be identified, the Secretary shall remove such oil or matter or arrange for its removal. Funds for this purpose should he derived from a percentage of Federal oil revenues set aside in a trust fund. The amount of this fund should be determined by the Secretary. ADDITIONAL ISSUES In a further review of HR. 15906 and S. 2760, I discovered that: 1. Both Bills attempt to avoid the limitations of Liability Act of 1851; 2. There is no provision in either Bill to cope with damages resulting from materials (i.e., detergents, etc.) used to remove the oil and other matter; 3. There are no provisions allowing victimized parties to remove pollutants and later be compensated therefor prior to action taken by the Secretary or prior to action taken by the responsible owners or operators; and 4. Since there will be more than one Federal agency affected by this Act, it niay be appropriate for the President of the United States to administer the Act instead of the Secretary of the Interior. CONCLUSION In conclusion I believe that an "Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substance Con- trol Act" must be enacted and it must be effective. It must contain measures designed to cope with factors referred to in my testimony. Since I believe that HR. 15906 and S. 2760 do not go far enough in protecting the coastal communi- ties in my District or, for that matter, throughout the nation, I appeal to the Members of this Committee to develop legislation which will guarantee protection of our Nation's shorelines. Mr. TEAGUE. I am particularly interested in this problem because my congressional district in California contains almost 200 miles of shoreline along the Pacific Ocean. I have a somewhat unique position and responsibility, perhaps. My two principal counties-although 110W I recently have, until the elec- tion at least, part of Los Angeles County-but my two principal counties are Ventura and Santa Barbara. Very recently the Secretary of Interior, I think quite properly and with what I consider to be reasonable restrictions, has granted leases for exploration and oil drilling, primarily off the coast of Santa Bar- bara County. It is my recollection that the oil companies have invested PAGENO="0501" 493 or commited themselves to the tune of some $600 million for drilling in this area, hoping to recover oil from a pooi which many geologists consider to be the best untapped source of oil in this country. As I say, most of these explorations and drillings now in process are off the coast of Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara County is an area certainly including the city of Santa Barbara which is beauti- ful and which has comparatively little industry and which depends a lot for its income and economy on resort travel and homes for retired persoiis. The service-or servicing, perhaps I should say, portions of the oil industry lie in Ventura County, also in my district. The ships which go out to the drilling sites, the oil well supply companies, all this sort of business is in Ventura County. I am sure you all will understand that this presents the Congressmen represent- ing both of these districts with some problem. Santa Barbara County, understandably, wants to protect the beauty of its shoreline. Ventura County wants to profit again, understand- ably, from the prosperity of oil development. I think all of this can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of my constituents of both counties. And I think the Secretary of Interior has laid down very reasonable restrictions on drilling. However, we still are faced with the possibility of serious oil pol- lution. Hopefully, of course, it will not occur. I do not envy this com- mittee its responsibility of trying to do what I know you are trying to do, come up with reasonable legislation which will be fair to the oil industry and also will protect the people along the shore from po- tential pollution from oil escapes. As I understand it-let me first say I have just gotten back, a day or two ago, from California, and I asked Mr. Eric Silberstein, from my office, to research this problem very carefully, and lie came up with some problems I had not realized existed. I am sure you and your staff do. LEGAL PROBLEMS I will mention them for the record. One that you might be involved with-three areas of law: international, admiralty, statutory and common law. One thing that concerns me is the Liability Act of 1851 which, as I understand it, places a limit on liability to actions in rem, which of course means that if a ship or an oil rig should become faulty and cause pollution, the action by those injured would be limited to the value of the ship or the oil rig or device. Furthermore there is a lien provision, as I am told, giving maybe quite properly, or placing a limitation on total liability and giving lien holders, the employees, the first lien. One thing I would hope this committee would consider is going beyond limiting actions to in rem and authorize them in personem so the owners of the oil rigs involved also could be sued in the event of liability. . . GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION One other thing that concerns me in the bills that I have seen, that we have studied, is what seems to me to be an insufficient consideration of the geographical problems. PAGENO="0502" 494 Without going into detail-it is covered in my statement but we do have in Santa Barbara, off the coast, drilling going on beyond the 12-mile limit. Now, if a well, a drilling device, a rig, should be- come faulty and dump oil into the ocean, it could easily come in and ruin the shoreline along Santa Barbara from an area beyond the 12- mile limit. I would hope, if it is legally possible-I am not prepared to discuss whether it is-that this committee would consider not limiting liabil- ity under such legislation as you may approve to certainly not the 3- mile limit and not even the 12-mile limit. ACTS OF GOD One thing that concerns me even more, and I do not know how much this committee has considered this problem, is the damage resulting from acts of God. Now, as you all know, of course, we have earthquakes in California. The normal earthquake does no damage, to speak of, to the coast. You might have a tidal wave, and perhaps there is minor injury. Now, I am not proposmg that the oil companies, or those shipping oil, be held responsible for acts of God. But I would like to point out that should these wells develop, as they are expected to, and we should have-probably will-oil lines running from several miles out in the ocean into refineries on the coast, should these oil lines, no matter how well built, and beyond the point of negligence on the part of the owners thereof, should they break as a result of an earthquake or some other act of God, and the shoreline of beautiful Santa Barbara be polluted and damaged, it seems to me that there is a reasonable remedy. That would be, and I would hope this committee would give careful consideration to it, the establishment of a trust or insurance fund to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior and to be accumulated at some reasonable rate out of the very considerable royalty revenues being received, and to be received by the Federal Government. This might be a million dollars a yea'. It is in a trust fund. It is not going to be spent unless it is needed. But it would fill this vacuum which seems to me might exist in the event of a terribly serious damage situation to the coast line for which the companies themselves, the operators, should not and cannot, it seems to me, be held responsible. I would hope the committee would give consideration to these points I have mentioned, reasonably briefly, and which are expanded upon to some extent in the written statement I have filed with the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman, we thank you. From your background of experience, you are very directly and vitally affected and at times perhaps even threatened, as you indicate. You raised some very valid points, and the legislation needs to be given very careful consideration. It is going to be a tough problem. Mr. TEAGIJE. It certainly is. It is most tough and complex. May I ask this: No. 1, Am I correct in assuming that you will not be marking this bill up tomorrow or next week in its final form? Is that a fair assumption? Mr. BLATNIK. There is a big wad to chew. several wads-a lot of chewing and digesting to do. PAGENO="0503" 495 Mr. TEAGUE. We will draft some suggested amendments to cover these points that I feel are important and submit them to the commit- tee, and I hope they will be considered. Mr. BLATNIK. They certainly shall be. We appreciate the specific suggestions very much. Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. We now get to our panel of conservationists. It is a pleasure to see you all. We are pleased with the progress that has been made. And out of that we get inspiration to realize how much more can be done which years ago was unthinkable. We could not think about it or talk about it. It seemed that far out of reach. STATEMENT OP CONSERVATION PANEL ON WATER POLLUTION, COMPOSED OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, ~FR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITT~EE ON NATURAL RESOURCES; WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIA~ TION; LOUIS CLAPPER, CHIEF, CONSERVATION EDUCATION DIVI- SION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; JOHN L. HALL, EX- ECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; JOSELPH W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA; C. R. GUTERMUTH, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE; AND LLOYD TUPLING, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the panel is before you today. We have discussed with the staff, and in order to conserve your time and also be helpful, we have provided- Mr. BLATNIK. Dr. Smith, just for routine preliminaries, and for the benefit of the reporter here, would you give your full name and title, so we will have it in the record, and identify each one of your panelists? Dr. SMITH. I am Spencer M. Smith, Jr., the secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources. The list which you have will provide the reporter our names and will be in the order in which we present our statements. Now we have written statements, which will be filed, and I think have been filed with the committee. Our 5-minute oral statements will try not to repeat each other, and will be drawn in part from the written statement which we under- stand will be included in full in the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. It will be included in full and in the sequence whichyou arranged for and have so instructed the reporter. Dr. SMn'iI. Mr. Towell. (Prepared statement of William E. Toweil follows:) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION S. 2760 Acid and other mine water pollution control Both purposes of this Act are desirable and needed. Acid mine drainage is a serious problem in many areas. I have seen whole watersheds unfit for fishing and other water recreation because of strip-mine pollution. In Missouri, we PAGENO="0504" 496 were particularly concerned about abandoned mines where the present owners had no responsibility. The idea of study and demonstration projects is good if it leads to some actual cleanup work. States should be willing to pay a part of the costs even for demonstration projects and 25% seems like a fair amount. Oil pollution control Oil pollution is extremely detrimental to fish and wildlife. Waterfowl in par- ticular have been harmed by oil spills. Many instances of oil spillage have been intentional or the result of carelessness or negligence and a law "with teeth in it" to discourage such waste is needed. "Acts of God" should not absolve vessels or installations of all responsibility for their accidents. We need a national plan for dealing with such emergencies near our coast lines and on our navigable waters. The idea of a revolving fund to finance cleanup activities might work but it also could be a limiting factor on how much could be done even in an emergency. Earmarking of funds might assure some money but it could be insufficient when the need is greatest. In Section 19(h), I wonder why the Secretary should be authorized to issue regulations permitting the discharge of oil? But, I presume it is necessary to delineate maximum tolerances as a matter of practicality. The provision on federal agency responsibility is good as the government should "get its own house in order" before getting tough with others. H.R. 15906 Oil and hazardous substances pollution control This bill is practically the same as S. 2700 with respect to oil pollution. One improvement is the section dealing with "other matter" which may constitute an imminent or substantial hazard to public health or welfare. Enforcement provisions seem to be stronger and perhaps better. The Section requiring the Secretary to establish water quality and conserva- tive objectives and standards on removing oil discharges seems very desirable. HR. 15906 is preferable to 5. 2760 on oil pollution but it still doesn't provide for accidental spills which could be the most damaging of all. HR. 15907 Waste treatment works debt financing This is a major piece of legislation on many aspects of water pollution control. It duplicates parts of other bills and substantially amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Its major feature is the change in federal procedure of financing municipal treatment plants. It seems practical as this is how modern day financing is done and should stimulate greater muniëipal action. Three years should prove it either valuable or unworkable. I like the guidelines in Section (f) (2), that (1) there be reasonableassurance of repayment, (2) that there is enough money available to do the job, and (3) the obligation bears a reasonable interest rate. As a tax payer I agree that interest on obligations for waste treatment instal- lations, fiuianced partly by federal money, should not be tax exempt, but this may slow down sale of bonds. Federal guarantee of loans, however, should make them attractive. Other provisions of HR. 15907 should encourage better regional watershed and large metropolitan area planning. We have attempted to do the pollution con- trol job piecemeal for too long. Requirements for 125,000 person units, com- prehensive planning and pay-as-you-go financing should speed up sewage treat- ment development. By all means every approved project should have state ap- proval, conform to better quality standards, meet overall state needs, cover a maximum feasible area and be consistent with a river basin pollution control plan if there is one. The 10% limitation of fund allotment to any one state should help distribute the federal money, but there should continue to be some additional incenth~e to the state that is doing the most for itself. I am glad to see the emphasis on adequacy of design and encouragement of statewide planning. The authorizing amounts for construction grants are much more realistic than appropriations have been in recent years. I do not know if they are ade- PAGENO="0505" 497 quate but it is a step in the right direction. If Congress has the foresight to authorize these increases, I hope it also will have the courage to appropriate the full amounts when they are approved. Although $100 million seems somewhat inadequate as compared to the total proposed authorizations, it is goOd thinking to guarantee some grants to the smaller municipalities. Otherwise the larger, wealthier cities could gobble up all the funds. Estuary study I will comment on the Comprehensive Estuaries Study only briefly by saying that estuarie.s are extiemely important for recreational, fish and wildlife and esthetic purposes and deserve more attention. This proposal in ILR. 15907 may duplicate other legislation already near passage or reports already in process of preparation by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. In any event we should have a national program for estuarine study, use, preservation and development, but would question whether $1 million dollars for fiscal years 1969 and 197~J is adequate for that job. Research and Demonstrations Section 6 should strengthen the research and demonstration features of the Water Pollution Control Act, which is all to the good. Training of technicians and public awareness of pollution problems both are needed in larger degrees. From the conservationists viewpoint, deterioration of our lakes, through both natural causes and artificial pollution is a very serious problem as is the preva- lence of combined storm and sanitary sewer systems that play such havoc dur- ing periods of heavy runoff. Both are deserving of much greater attention than they have received in the past. WASTE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION Mr. TOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I consider it a real privilege to be lead- off speaker for this distinguished panel. For purposes of identification, I might point out that I was a former member of the Federal WTater Pollution Control Advisory Board. My statement in full has been submitted, and I would like to ta1k briefly on what we consider an extremely important phase of the Fed- eral water pollution control program, and that. is construction grants. I think this is the area in which work actually is being clone. It is where water pollution control begins to be effective on the ground, and therefore it becomes one of the most important parts of the whole water pollution control effort. It is significant, I think, that since the Federal Government came into the construction grant program, that this stimulus has resulted in work being done by the towns and cities at a ratio of about 5 to 1, or I think now at least 4 to. 1, local money is being expended by towns and cities in order to qualify for these Federal grants. So it is doing a tremendous job. There have been evidence to show that much more could be spent if it were available. I recall a few years back when the accelerated pub- lic works funds were suddenly made available fOr this type of work, all that was there was immediately used up, and there was still a backlog of work that could have been accomplished. And, as you know, and as the entire Congress knows, we are falling far behind the schedule which you, yourselves, the Congress, has es- tablished to catch up on the sewage treatment works that are needed. The present authorization calls for construction grants far in ex- cess of that. which is now being appropriated. For example, this fiscal PAGENO="0506" 498 year some $203 million were appropriated, and under the authoriza- tion it was $450 million, this was considered minimum. Under the bill you have before you only $225 million has been recommended, yet the authorization calls for $700 million again as the minimum necessary to do the job. Now I cannot answer for the Congress whether we can afford this or not, but speaking from the conservation standpoint, it is a must. This is one type of conservation activity that we cannot continue to ignore and to put off. This is perhaps not the place to do it, but my plea i's that current authorizations or future authorizations, whatever they may be, be appropriated in full. This is the minimum that we feel is necessary from the conservation standpoint. The new bills before you, which would establish a contract authority for financing municipal grants, seems like a very good step in the right direction. A couple of years ago, while serving as a member of the `Water Pollution Control Board, we recommended this as the way in which more effective use of Federal funds might be made by cities in constructing these sewage treatment works, guarantee of loans, payment of the Federal share over a contract period, guarantee of interest, payment of interest, seems like a very practical, very logical way in which the municipal grants can be financed. And I think it will go far toward helping the. towns and cities to do a better job in utilization of Federal funds. The guidelines-I do not need to repeat them for you. I have re- viewed them quite carefully, and I think they are good. I believe that with the guidelines that have been established in the legislation, I am speaking now particularly of H.R. 15907, I think that these would assure the Federal Government of good compliance on the part of the municipalities. I would support the non-tax-exempt feature for these securities, the bonds that would be issued under Federal loans. I think with public money being used for this purpose and with a guarantee of all of the loans on both the part of the State and the Federal Government, that we cannot afford to deprive the Federal Government of additional tax revenue that the non-tax-exempt feature would-that the tax- exempt feature would get. Two other points. The 10-percent limitation to any one State is, I feel, desirable, because some of the more wealthy States could use up a tremendous amount of the money; but with the 10-percent limitation they still get a big share, and I think it is still enough to recognize those who are doing the most for themselves. On the other side of the coin, I feel that a $100 million authoriza- tion strictly for the smaller towns will keep them into the picture. so that more wealthy communities, the big cities, will not use up all the funds. I support this bill, Mr. Chairman. I am sure all the conservationists do, too, and again would urge, if we can get the appropriations as contained in this bill, if we can get the authorizations, I hope that Congress will have the courage also to make the full appropriations. Mr. BLATNHC Thank you very much. Mr. Clapper. PAGENO="0507" 499 LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. CLAPPER. Mr. Chairman, I think my first appearance before this committee was about 10 years ago, and certainly we have been pleased at the increased interest that has developed since that time. We think your committee and the subcommittee headed by Mr. Jones in Gov- ernment operations have done outstanding jobs in alerting the public to this. I would like to limit my comments to the control of eutrophication, the lake problem. We would like t~o comment specifically on the provisions in both J-I.R. 15907 and S. 2760, which would authorize the development and demonstration of new or improved methods for the prevention, re- moval, and control of natural or manmade pollution in lakes, includ- ing the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation. Lakes, both natural and manmade, are among man's most valuable natural resources. From the ultilitarian point of view, they provide sources of water supply for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and navigational purposes. From the recreational point of view, they offer magnificent opportunities for fishing, hunting, and a host of water- related sports such as swimming, water-skiing, boating, and skating. The mere existence of a lake lends beauty and attraction to a landscape. The committ~ may be interested in a few statistics. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, completed an economic survey of the sports of hunting and fishing for 1965. The survey revealed that 28,348,000 sport fishermen spent nearly $3 billion that year in pursuing their activities. They enjoyed 522,759,000 fishing recreation days, of which 426,929,000 were spent on fresh water. TJn- doubtedly, a major part of the fresh water fishing is done on lakes and ponds. And these statistics do not include the many other recreational uses of lakes. Limnology, or the study of fresh waters, especially ponds and lakes, is not a new science. Prof. F. A. Forel, of the University of Laus- anne, Switzerland, is regarded as the founder of modern limnology. He established the study in the 1860's. However, much of the present information on the ecology of lakes is relatively new, having been developed since World War II. There is much that scientists still do not know, particularly about pollution and eutrophication. Eutrophication, or aging of water, is regarded by many scientists as one of the foremost natural resource problems of our time-certainly with respect to water pollution. Eutrophication most often results from man-produced nutrients which enter the lake or pond and even- tually become part of the plant and animal growth cycles. The control of excessive production through pollutants is of major importance and concern to those who use the water for recreation. Once biological nuisances develop, the controls are costly and time- consuming. Often the controls are temporary. Overproduction will remain a continuing problem unless the basic causes can be reduced or eliminated. And this is a point worth stressing: biologists of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration say that the prob- 1cm of altering basic causes has not been fully solved at the present time. This fact highlights the need for comprehensive pilot programs PAGENO="0508" 500 in lake pollution prevention and control, as would be authorized by these bills. The Federal IVater Pollution Control Administration, in a bulletin issued in 1964 when the agency was a unit of the Public Health Serv- ice, listed the following effects from severe water pollution: (1) transmission of enteric diseases by water inadequately treated, (2) trans- ~nission of diseases by insects from polluted streams, (3) harmful reduction of individual water intake because of water potability, (4) possible toxicity of chemical and metallic wastes, (5) neuroses caused by noxious odors from pol- luted streams, (6) spread of diseases by cattle and other animals having access to polluted streams, (7) loss of recreational areas, and (8) economic changes. Pollution of lakes, of course, may come from many sources: domes- tic sewage, industrial wastes, mammal and bird wastes, runoff from agricultural lands and cities, pesticides applied from the air or by boats, and others. In a general sense, however, the principal problem is that pollutants add fertility to the water-often even if a plant is operating efficiently otherwise. These fertilizers, mostly nitrogen and phos~horus, stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants which become nuisances to recreational uses of the lakes. TJnfortunately, a continued high rate of nutrient supply is not necessary for continued algal production. After an initial stimulus, the recycling of nutrients within the basin is enough to produce algal blooms for several years. In short, as the aging process advances, the water becomes enriched and the lake gets shallower from accumulated sediment and organic debris, and anchoring of it by rooted aquatic plants. Methods have been developed and perfected to produce a temporary reduction and control of excessive production under some circum- stances. However, much still remains to be learned. The controls may be either mechanical or chemical, with their uses dependent upon the body of water and the type and extent of control desired. Mechanical controls generally are limited to rooted aquatic vegetation. Chemical controls have been developed for algae, rooted aquatic vegetation, and other nuisance organisms. Every control has limitations. Of course, the most important problem is controlling the basic cause or causes of pollution. In conclusion, conservationists are agreed that much more work needs to be accomplished toward preventing, removing, and otherwise controlling the pollution of lakes, particularly those which are pub- licly owned and available to the public. Pilot programs demonstrating how this can be accompished will be of broad general interest and benefit. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Louis Clapper follows:) STATEMENT OF Louis S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Chief of the Division of Conservation Education for the National Wildlife Federation, which has headquarters at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., here in Washington, D.C. By way of identification, the National Wildlife Federation is a private, non- profit organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means and methods. The Federation has affiliated independent organization in 49 of the States. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and mdi- PAGENO="0509" 501 viduals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation number an estimated 21/2 million persons. We wel~ome the invitation to appear here today. Conservation organizations long have been among the groups which are leading a battle against man's contamination of his Own environment. The National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention in March of this year, adopted a resolu- tion listing what it considers to be the major issues of 1968. Environmental con- tainination heads the list. Our organization emphasizes its urgent concern about this contamination by water and air pollutants, by toxic chemicals used as pesti- cides and for other purposes, by solid wastes, and by noise-problems which are being aggravated by increases in the human population. These situations not only present hazards to the health of man and other creatures, but damage or destroy the quality of life experiences, including those found in the out-of-doors. We believe it is essential that massive efforts be launched to control water and air pollution, to plan and use the least harmful means of disposing of wastes, and to minimize or eliminate the ill effects resulting from the use of chemical pesticides. This resolution specifically comments: "In controlling water pollution, it is viewed as essential that Federal and State agencies adopt standards designed ultimately to attain high levels of water quality, recognizing when necessary that they may not be achieved in the immediate future, rather than establishing low levels of quality which are difficult to upgrade." The Federation also states its belief that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act can be improved through additional provisions designed to correct problems relating to the accelerated aging of lakes, mine acids, oil, and heat. I might digress long enough here to express our gratitude and commendation to Members of this Committee for the extremely valuable leadership they have exerted in drawing attention throughout the Country to needs for controlling all contamination of the environment, particularly water pollution. When one re- calls that the entire Federal construction grants program was in real jeopardy only ten years ago, the amounts of money involved in discussions about HR. 15907 are truly remarkable and your Committee certainly merits plaudits for playing a most significant role in this progress. We were highly elated when, in 1966, major new increases were authorized in the construction grants program. In fact, at the time, we supported even greater authorizations. Therefore, our disappoIntment was keen when less than one-half of the authorized funds were appropriated for fiscal 1968 or sought for fiscal 1969. This disappointment exists even though we fully realize the magnitude of the competition for Federal funds for many other programs, especially national defense and urban improvements. In view of the foregoing, we would like to endorse the principles expressed in HR. 15907, the proposed "Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968." LONG-TERM FINANCING As we read the bill, it would allow the Federal Government for three years to obligate itself through contracts for long-term (up to 30 years) commitments to bear its share of the cost of constructing municipal waste treatment works. We also understand that the Federal Government would pay off both principal and interest in these payments. We are in accord with this method of financing and certainly hope it will prove sufficiently attractive to investors that there will be no difficulties in securing the necessary monies. Of course, we also are hopeful thai the crises will be alleviated to the point where advance financing of this sort is not necessary and grants can be made outright for the full authorizations each year. It goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that we also hope the full authoriza- tion for $700 million can be approved for fiscal 1969 under this type of arrange- ment. ADDED REQUIREMENTS We believe the requirements that the local public body be financially stable and approved are good ones. However, while not being opposed, we must admit that we do not fully understand or appreciate the rationale for the requirement relating to areas of 125,000 persons or more or to a standard statistical area. It is sound, in our opinion, for the Federal Government to insist upon an ef- fective statewide treatment works operator certification program. There is no question that many treatment plants are operated far below their potential PAGENO="0510" 502 efficiency due, in part, to the lack of knowledge or desire on the part of op- erators. All too often, these operators are employed as much for their political connections than for a knowledge or ability in the field. Thus, anything that can improve professionalism in this area will be beneficial. We should like to express our approval of reenactment of the comprehensive estuaries study and its extension. We are especially familiar with parts of this program and believe it should be extended. We also are in accord with the desirability of extending the authorization for the research, demonstration, investigations, training, and informational programs and for those on separation of storm sewers, advanced waste treatment, and industrial wastes. CONTROL OF EUTROPHICATION I should like to comment specifically upon the provisions in both HR. 15907 (Sec. 4) and S. 2760 (Sec. 1), which would authorize the development and dem- onstration of new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and con- trol of natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation. Lakes, both natural and manmade, are among man's most valuable natural resources. From the utilitarian point of view, they provide sources of water sup- ply for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and navigational purposes. From the recreational point of view, they offer magnificent opportunities for fishing, hunt- ing, and a host of water-related sports such as swimming, water-skiing, boating, and skating. The mere existence of a lake lends beauty and attraction to a landscape. The Committee may be interested in a few statistics. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, completed an economic sur- vey of the sports of hunting and fishing for 1965. The survey revealed that 28,- 348,000 sport fishermen spent nearly $3 billion that year in pursuing their activities. They enjoyed 522,759,000 fishing recreation days, of which 426,922,000 were spent on fresh water. Undoubtedly, a major part of the fresh water fishing is done on lakes and ponds. And, these statistics do not include the many other recreational uses of lakes. Limnology, or the study of fresh waters, especially ponds and lakes, is not a new science. Prof. F. A. Ford, of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, is regarded as the founder of modern limnology. He established the study in the 1860's. However, much of the present information on the ecology of lakes is rela- tively new, having been developed since World War II. There is much that scientists still do not know, particularly about pollution and eutrophication. Eutrophication, or aging of water, is regarded by many scientists as one of the foremost natural resource problems of our time-certainly with respect to water pollution. Eutrophication most often results from man-produced nutri- ents which enter the lake or pond and eventually become a part of the plant and animal growth cycles. The control of excessive production through pollutants is of major importance and concern to those who use the water for recreation. Once biological nuisances develop, the controls are costly and time-consuming. Often, the controls are temporary. Over-production will remain a continuing problem unless the basic causes can be reduced or eliminated. And, this is a point worth stressing: biologists of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration say that the problem of altering basic causes has not been fully solved at the present time. This fact highlights the need for comprehensive pilot programs in lake pol- lution prevention and control, as would be authorized by these bills. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, in a bulletin issued in 1964 when the agency waS a unit of the Pu~biic Health Service, listed the following effects from severe water pollution: "(1) transmission of enteric diseases by water inadequately treated, (2) transmission of diseases by insects from pol- luted streams, (3) harmful reduction of individual water intake because of water potability, (4) possible toxicity of chemical and metallic wastes, (5) neuroses caused by noxious odors from polluted streamS, (6) spread of diseases ~y cattle and other animals having accesS to polluted streams, (7) loss of recreational areas, and (5) economic changes." Pollution of lakes, of course, may come from many sources: domestic sewage, industrial wastes, mammal and bird wastes, runoff from agricultural lands and cities, pesticides applied from the air or by boats, and others. In a general sense, however, the principal problem is that pollutants add fertility to the water- PAGENO="0511" 503 often even if a plant is operating efficiently otherwise. These fertilizers, mostly nitrogen and phosphorus, stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants which become nuisances to recreational uses of the lakes. Unfortunately, a continued high rate of nutrient supply is not necessary for continued algal production. After an initial stimulus, the recycling of nutrients within the ~asin is enough to produce algal blooms for several years. In short, as the aging process advances, the water become enriched and the lake gets shallower from accumu- lated sediment and organic debris, and anchoring of it by rooted aquatic plants. Methods have been developed and perfected to produce a temporary reduction and control of excessive production under some circumstances. However, much still remains to be learned. The controls may ~e either mechanical or chemical, with their uses dependent upon the body of water and the type and extent of control desired. Mechanical controls generally are limited to rooted aquatic vegetation. Obemical controls have been developed for algae, rooted aquatic vegetation, and other nuisax~ce organisms. Every control has limitations. Of course, the most important problem is controlling the basic cause of causes of pollution. In conclusion, conservationists are agreed that much more work needs to be accomplished toward preventing, removing, and otherwise controlling the pol- lution of lakes, particularly those which are pu~1icly owned and available to the public. Pilot programs demonstrating how this can be accomplished will be of broad general interest and benefit. ACID MINE WA5TE5 We believe added emphasis needs to ~e placed on developing means of con- trolling acid or other mine water pollution. This problem is acute in many areas and some breakthrough is essential. Demonstrations appear to be the best answer and we hope projects of this type, including that which was suspended at Elkins, West Virginia, can be pursued with vigor and dispatch. OIL POLLUTION The National Wildlife Federation long has Jeen concerned about pollution resulting from oil, either by accidental or deliberate discharges. Thus, we are in agreement with the general principles expressed in both S. 2760 and H.R. 15906, particularly with respect to establishing liability for spills and provisions for cleknup and removal. However, we cannot agree to the provision in S. 2760 that would exempt liability for an act of God. ThiS is a loophole which must ~e plugged. We think it is especially essential that some means be developed to fix responsibilities when there is a divided ownership between carriers and cargoes. We also consider it urgent that dockside facilities for disposal of oil wastes be provided as integral patits of harbor services. POLLUTION FROM VESSELS To us, water pollution is of serious and significant concern. This is true regardless of the origin of the pollution-the malodorous messes of municipal sewage, potent and pungent wastes from industries, sterilizing acids seeping from mines, and persistent and paralyzing oil from leaks and wrecks and spills. It is eqitrlly true that we must work to control additional pollution from vessels, even though these often present special and unusual difficulties. This is another source of evil which must be removed. We view with concern the pollution resulting from vessels even though we recognize that, from a volume point of view, the pollution from watercraft is relatively small in comparison to some other sources. Pollution originating from watercraft is readily apparent visually from direct over-the-side discharges. Thus, it presents a more offensive appearance in many instances than greater volumes of pollution originating from other sources in the same area. This is particularly true when ships are tied up or anchored in a harbor. And, because of their mobility, watereraft often create pollution problems which are un- detected. And, also because of their mobility, watercraft often can pollute areas which otherwise may be thought to be safe. In our opinion, several basic principles are involved with the problem of water pollution originating with watercraft: PAGENO="0512" 504 1. Wastes from watercraft must be recognized as important sources of pollu- tion and given the proper attention by all regulatory agencies-Federal, state, and local. Because of the special nature of this type of pollution, unusually close coordination must be achieved between the various jurisdictions involved. It is our opinion that the regulatory agencies have not given enough attention to this problem in the past. 2. Pollution from watercraft must be approached without favor as to size, use, and country of origin. In short, we believe that regulations should apply equally to the largest liner and tanker and to the smallest type of recreational boat which has toilet facilities. We hope that vessels owned by the U.S. Government, including military craft, can set a proper type of example in the handling of their wastes. And, regulations must be made applicable to vessels under foreign registry which visit the United States as well as to those flying the U.S. flag. Commercial vessels of the U.S. should not be placed at a competitive disadvan- tage by being required to meet pollution control standards not required of others which use the same waters. 3. It is especially important that harbors be equipped with the proper dockside facilities to handle wastes from watercraft, both in the form of sewage connec- tions to ships tied up in port and to handle wastes collected in holding tanks. This probably is the best solution whereby pollution from many foreign nations can be bandied. The installation of proper holding or treatment facilities by vessels of some foreign countries may be difficult to achieve. But, if they can hook up to waste discharge facilities at docks in the U.S., this procedure will enhance the likelihood of controlling pollution. It appears tremendously impor taut to us that these facilities be available to ships in as many ports as possible. 4. It is essential that effective laws and regulations to control vessel pollution be enacted and vigorously enforced. These should be made effective as far as out from land as the U.S. jurisdiction will permit. More and more Americans are seeking recreation along beaches which easily can be fouled by pollution or litter from watercraft. In this connection, we also would suggest that the Committee explore the desirability of invoking an international treaty for pollution dis- charges similar to that now applicable to oil. In other words, wastes could be dumped only in certain zones far at sea. 5. Marinas and other floating facilities used to service boats, and houseboats, should be regulated for water pollution in the same manner as land-located sources of pollution. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS To conclude this statement, Mr. Chairman, we should like to make two general observations. First, back when the Water Quality Act of 1965 was passed, we were pleased that it seemed to set the stage for a flat-out declaration, that the United States was setting a floor on water pollution-that conditions would not be allowed to get any worse-that all movement would be upward, toward enhancement of the quality of public waters. As you know, the States were required to develop rec- ommended standards of quality by June 30 of last year (1967). Guidelines were issued. Back in the early fall, we were dismayed to learn that the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Administration was approving of State standards which did not nieet the Interior Department's own guidelines which said: "in no way will standards providing for less than existing water quality be acceptable." The FWPCA was placing its hopes on improving the water quality through agree- ments to attain secondary treatment for domestic sewage and industrial effluents. Now, we are cognizant of the fact that secondary treatment of wastes is a worthy goal in most Staes, one which would result in the improvement of many lakes and streams and coastal areas. However, we are equally aware that secondary treatment is not 100 per cent effective-perhaps 85 per cent at best-and the net accumulative effect of several plants can result in damage or destruction of waters just as surely as no treatment at all. And, we also know that secondary treatment is not effective on some pollutants, notably nutrients and heavy metals and thermal pollution. Thus, the representatives of several citizen groups, in October of 1967, pro- tested to the Secretary of the Interior and he suspended approvals of State stand- ards until the problems could be reviewed. We protested against the degradation PAGENO="0513" 505 of waters. We protested that recomniendations of the Department's own National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Requirements for Fishes, other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife were not being followed, particularly with regards to oxygen and temperature. We protested that the Federal Government had ab- rogated its rights and responsibilities for determining the uses of interstate streams. In Short, we expressed the opinion that the Water Quality Act of 1965 wa becoming nothing more than a license to pollute. Early in February, the Secretary of the Interior issued a statement on the degradation problem and we were highly pleased and gratified at his position. "I have concluded that in order to be consistent with the basic policy and ob- jective of the Water Quality Act a provision in all State standards substantially in accordance with the following is required," Secretary Udall declared. This is the provision: "Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their ex- isting high quality. These and other waters of a State will not be lowered in qual- ity unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source of pollution or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treat- ment available under existing technology, and, since these are also Federal stand- .ards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively." Once that basic determination of policy was decided, a host of approvals of State standards-with some exceptions-has followed. Needless to say, we sin- cerely hope that implementation of these standards can proceed with dispatch. This will include vigorous law enforcement when necessary. As you might suspect, conservationists plan to be vigilant in, watching a poten- tial loophole in the Interior Department's policy statement. This relates to a lowering of standards if justifiable as a result of "necessary economic or social development" and will not "interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses." Secretary Udall has said that the industries or municipalities must show compelling social and economic reasons before exceptions would be allowed to the standards. We plan to be on hand to insist that such exceptions really be "compelling." Second, conservationists and many others are dismayed about attitudes re- cently expressed in some circles. Some Americans always have worshipped at the Altar of the Almighty Buck. In fact, much of the present day pollution, as well as other `natural resource problems, can be traced directly to a pre-eminent consid- eration for dividends rather than responsibilities to the public. We all know that many of the assets we treasure most are intangibles upon which no real monetary value can be placed-appreciation for the arts such as music and literature, for religion, and for love and affection. Something akin is reflected in an appreciation of the beauty of the outdoors, or natural values, that is spoiled by a contaminated environment. These considerations must be part of the overall picture, in addition to a need for clean water from health reasons or for pleasurable domestic or industrial purposes. Finally, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the Committee, we are attaching `two resolutions (Nos. 9 and 15) adopted at our annual convention earlier this 3'ear which relate to still other facets of the water pollution problem. TPhank you again for the opportunty of making these remarks. RESOLUTION No. 9-CONTROL OF THERMAL PoLLUTIoN FRoM NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS Whereas, public waters of the Nation are used for a variety of beneficial pur- poses by members of the public, particularly for water-related recreation such as fishing. hunting, swimming, boating, and water-skiing: and Whereas. these bodies of water are malor elements in recreation-oriented 1~111S~ tries of important economic impact on the localities and States involved: and Whereas. the proposed water usage for nuclear power plant cooling purposes may result in significant levels of thermal pollution in many parts of the Nation; and 94-370-OS----33 PAGENO="0514" 506 Whereas, it has been demonstrated that thermal pollution can result in pro- found changes in the environment, damaging or destroying resident and anadro- mous fisheries and/or the aquatic organisms upon which they are dependent; arid Whereas, the Atomic Energy Commission denies having the authority to refuse licenses' for power reactors on grounds of thermal pollution; and Whereas, thermal pollution is defined as any change in temperature which is detrimental to the aquatic environment: Now, therefore, be it Resolved That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention as- sembled March 8. 1968, at Houston, Texas, urges that the Atomic Energy Com- mission be authorized and directed to required that applicants for permits for nuclear power plants using public waters meet temperature and monitoring standards promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and appropriate state authorities after consultation with Federal and state wildlife agencies, with the intent being to protect aquatic life, and after due notice and opportunity for public hearing based on substantial evidence that such modifications are neces- sary and desirable; and be it further Resolved That the National Wildlife Federation also expresses the hope that all plants generating electric power by the use of steam will be required to install closed-circuit cooling systems or make other arrangements which will prevent thermal and radioactive pollution of public waters. RESOLUTION No. 15-WATER QUALITY Whereas, the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234) encouraged peo- ple to believe that the quality of the Nation's water resources would be enhanced, w-ith no state standards being accepted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration that did not fully protect existing water quality and abate exist- ing pollution; and Whereas, primary and secondary treatment processes accepted by FWPOA for some domestic sewage and industrial effluents do not remove certain heavy metals which are toxic `to aquatic environments, nutrients which stimulate the growth of algae and other oxygen-depleting growths, or thermal pollution, and remove only a maximum of 85% of other wastes; and Whereas, unless curtailed, the accumulative effect of a series of installations giving secondary treatment can be a downgrading of water quality; and Whereas, FWPCA has accepted standards which will not fully protect the stated classified use of certain streams; and Whereas, attempts to upgrade standards once established are resisted by those who, in good faith, comply with the original stated requirements; and Whereas, the FWPCA has abrogated whatever right and authority it possessed to classify the uses of water in interstate streams: Now, therefore, be it Resolved That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention as- sembled March 8, 1968, at Houston, Texas, `hereby urges the Secretary of the Interior to require standards on interstate streams which will ensure water of a quality suitable for all beneficial and legitimate uses, including water contact sports, fish and other beneficial aquatic animal and vegetable life, recognizing that reasonable amounts of time may have to elapse before such standards can be achieved in some streams; and be it further Resolved That the Secretary be urged to keep intact in an advisory capacity the National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Requirements for Fishes, Other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Clapper. Dr. SMITH. Next is Mr. Hall. (Prepared statement of John L. Hall follows:) STATEMENT BY JOHN L. HALL, ASSISTANT ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. Chairman, my name is John L. Hall, Assistant Executive Director of The Wilderness Society, a 40,000-member national conservation organization with headquarters at 729 Fifteenth Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C. The Wil- derness Society's objectives are to secure the preservation of wilderness, to' carry on an educational program concerning the value of wilderness and how it may best PAGENO="0515" 507 be used and preserved in the public interest, to make and encourage scientific studies concerning wilderness, and to mobilize cooperation in resisting the inva- sion of wilderness. The Society strives to support all sound programs for the conservation of fish and wildlife, water, scenic, and outdoor recreation resources in order to assure balanced use of our nation's natural resources and the preservation of a quality environment for this generation and generations to come. 5. 2760 We approve of the basic purposes of this bill which will amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by authorizing research and demonstration pro- grams for the control of lake pollution and acid and other mine drainage and to prevent pollution by oil. The purposes of this Act are desirable and needed. Poteiitial Wilderness System units and scenic rivers in West Virginia are threatened by strip mine pollution. In Appalachia two-thirds of the streams and ponds tested by the Department of the Interior in 1963 were significantly polluted by acid to the point where they could not support fish life. The federal government must take the leadership in research and demonstra- tion programs and work cooperatively with the states and private industry in applying the methods known today in preventing, removing and controlling pollution of the nation's lakes and streams. National wildlife refuges and marine and seashore national parks and monu- ments can be damaged by oil pollution which is extremely detrimental to fish and wildlife. There is a need for a comprehensive program to control and prevent oil pollution in our nation's waterways and territorial seas. The authority of the Secretary of the Interior must be strengthened with respect to enforcement and cleanup. H.R. 15906 This bill is titled "The Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1968." The bill is practically the same as 5. 2760 with respect to oil pollution. it does not provide for the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke the license of a master or other licensed officer of any vessel found violating the provisions of the Act. This provision is covered in "subsection (g)" of "Section 19" in 5. 2760, and should be included in the legislation. The proposed "Section 21" titled "Removal of Discharged Matter from the Navigable Waters of the United States and the contiguous zone" is very im- portant and is needed. It defines "matter" as any substance of any description or origin other than oil which when discharged from a vessel or shore installa- tion into any waters in substantial quantities, presents, in the judgment of the Secretary an imminent and substantial hazard to the public health and welfare. Section 21 provides for almost the same prevention, control, and enforcement as is covered in Section 20 which pertains to oil pollution. We consider that this proposed Section 21 is needed to assist the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies in the prevention and control of pollution of the nation's waters. A good example is the extremly urgent need for preventing and con- trolling pollution in the Great Lakes basin. HR. 15007 This is a major piece of legislation on many aspects of water pollution control. It duplicates parts of other bills and substantially amends the Federal Water Pullution Control Act. Its main feature is the change in federal procedure of financing municipal treatment plants. We need to stimulate greater municipal action by usthg modern day financing methods as proposed. There is a great need for better regional watershed and metropolitan area planning. The authorized amounts for construction grants appear realistic and we encourage their appropriation by Congress. The comprehensive Estuaries Study is needed. Estuaries are important for recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness, and ethetic purposes and deserve more attention. The proposal in H.R. 15907 may duplicate other legislation for estuary studies now under consideration. However, we need a national program for study, use, preservation and development of estuarine areas. The $1 million for fiscal years 1909 and 1970 may not be adequate for the study. The strengthening of the research and demonstration features of the Water Pollution Control Act are needed and the provisions listed are good. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views. PAGENO="0516" 508 Mr BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Clapper. Dr. SMITH. Next is Mr. Hall. ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. HALL. I am John L. Hall, assistant executive director of the Wilderness Society. As a member of the conservation panel on pollution, my remarks -will be confined to the acid mine pollution problems that face us today and the need for effective action as proposed in the legislation being considered. Acid mine drainage and the pollution that results is very serious and complex. It is estimated that 4,300 miles of major streams are affected by acid mine pollution, and a total of 11,000 miles of just ordinary streams. In Appalachia today, two-thirds of the streams and ponds surveyed in 1965 by the Department of the Interior were unfit for fishlife. This is in an area adjacent to the heavy population centers of our Nation. These are the streams and ponds that used to support fishlife. Personally, as a boy, I wondered why the many beautiful and former trout streams in north central Pennsylvania did not have trout in them. The answer was acid mine drainage from the abandoned underground mines in the Laporte area of Sullivan County. The Federal Government must take leadership in demonstration areas and in research. It must work cooperatively with the States and private industry, and be a strong leader, as proposed in the legislation under study. We feel the reason the Federal Government must be the leader is quite evident when we consider these facts. Fifty percent of acid mine pollution is from abandoned mines; 25 percent of the pollution is from surface mines, and the other 75 percent from underground mines. And in this situation, when we consider the type of minerals being mined, we find that 93 to 97 percent of acid mine pollution comes from coal mining, and that 90 percent of this pollution originates on private lands. This is very serious in the watersheds of the Chesapeake, Susque- hanna drainages, the Potomac, and particularly in the States of Penn- sylvania to Missouri. The prevention of acid mine drainage from sur- face and underground mines can be accomplished by two major meth- ods. One is the preventing of the water from becoming polluted, and the second is removing the acids after they are in the water. Of course, the first is much more feasible, and it has been estimated that today 70 percent of the acid mine pollution could be corrected, that is right today, with the knowledge that we have, from preventing the water from becoming polluted. Then this is why the demonstration projects and the cooperative projects with the States and others is very important. The treatment of this acid mine drainage, the prevention of this pollution, is very important, not only when we consider the conserva- tion problems it causes, but the effect that this pollution has on our total environment. PAGENO="0517" 509 The Federal Government must take the lead in encouraging the States to assist the good work going on in West Virginia, in legi~ia- tion, and enforcement of this legislation, and in a demonstration project such as was started in Elkins, IV. Va., which is a good exam- pie of what can be done. It also points out the magnitude of the total work that must be done. We recommend strong action now in funding these demonstration projects that are being considered in acid mine research work, and we must emphasize-put the knowledge that we have today to work to- day to improve our environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. Mr. Douglas. Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Douglas was not able to get back this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. He filed copies of his statement with the committee yesterday. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, it will appear at this point in the record. (Prepared statement of Philip A. Douglas follows:) STATEMENT BY PHILIP A. DOUGLAS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman, I am Philip A. Douglas, Executive Secretary of the Sport Fish- ing Institute, the only non-profit, non-government, professionally-staffed na- tional fish conservation organization. Our main objective is to encourage the rapid development and sound application of fish conservation practices in order to improve sport fishing to the fullest. We derive our operating funds from a wide representation of manufacturers of various Sorts of equipment used out fishing, related industries, and interested individuals. I submitted my comments to you April 22, 1968, on HR. 15007, "The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1068," for inclusion in the record of hearings on that bill. Other fellow members of conservation organizations on this panel are addressing themselves to that particular phase of helping to effect water pollu- tion control through easing the terms for construction funds for sewage treat- ment facilities to the secondary level in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Today I wish to support this conservation panel in its concerted efforts to try to solve the myriad of water pollution problems facing this nation, and I apply my specific remarks to the oil and chemical pollution problems. These observa- tions are concerned with H.R. 15906, the "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1968." There can be no doubt in anyone's mind but that the introduction of oil or any toxic chemical substance, deliberate or otherwise, into our waters does con- stitute a major threat to our aquatic resources. The cases of fish and wildlife "kills" in U.S. waters, by oil itself as a suffocating agent, and toxic chemicals in the form of pesticides, and a myriad of other lethal compounds, are almost universal both in coastal and inland waters. The recent oil spillage disaster by the tanker Torrey Canyon off the British coast has been given much publicity, Sparking front page attention to other such happenings throughout the world. Close beside these unfortunate accidents comes the fear that our agricultural pest controls applied to the land are causing serious problems for the aquatic resources. Both problems are of considerable magnitude and cannot be ignored. Oil Pollution-Passage by the Senate last December of S. 2760 would authorize a research and demonstration program on lake pollution and acid and other mine water drainage and a program to control pollution by oil, with the Secretary of the Interior "at the helm." The latter is effected through repeal of the 1924 Oil Pollution Act, incorporating some of its provisions with changes in S. 2760. viz: Deletion of the terms "grossly negligent or willful" in definition of the word "discharge"-we highly approve of elimination of these hard-to-prove terms; PAGENO="0518" 510 application of criminal penalties, where a willful act was determined ; expansion of coverage to shore installations; coverage of Puerto Rico (following the recent San Juan Bay disaster), Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa; requirement of vessel or shore installation owners to remove discharged oil from navigable waters or pay clean-up costs in all cases, except when due to an act of God. The bill includes two additions in enforcement authority which are of considerable help to the Secretary: (1) Authorization to remove discharged oil from navigable waters and shoreline areas to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects on . . . fish and wildlife, and recreation; and to charge and recover all actual costs incurred. (2) Authorization of appropriations to a revolving fund to finance such clean-up measures. H.R. 15906 w-ould supplement S. 2760 to help do the job the President has requested be done, only do it better in our estimation. It would prohibit the discharge of oil from a vessel or offshore structure into the waters of the con- tiguous zone. it would also add a new- section providing for the clean up of large discharges of pollutants not limited just to oil. The President, in his message on "Renewing the Nation," proposed that legis- lation be provided to control oil pollution and pollution from other substances. These Senate and House bills resulted from this request. H.R. 15906 largely does what S. 2760 purports, but extends such provisions beyond the navigable waters of the U.S. to the contiguous zone, a nine-mile zone beginning on the outer limit.s of the Territorial Sea. Since winds and currents have considerable effect on the littoral zones of our coastline, such protection as far seaward as possible is absolutely essential and an extension of control to 12 miles offshore would he most desirable. Too, HR. 15906 provides for an added civil penalty of up to $1,000 to the civil and criminal penalties contained in S. 2760, an added deterrent to violators. There is also a proviso for the Secretary of the Interior to designate his authority to coordinate clean-up of oil pollution to other Federal agencies where appropriate. In addition, shore installations discharging any other sub- stances posing imminent threat to the public welfare must ameliorate such efforts. I w-ould like to request that this latter section be amended to include considera- tion for fish and wildlife resources, as w-ell as human health and welfare. Chemical Pollutiom.-H.R. 15900 provides an additional requirement to that of the Water Quality Act of 1965 that private owners take appropriate actions when they discharge substantial amounts of pollutants into interstate waters, thereby reducing water quality below state standards. The recent Clinch River disaster in Virginia and Tennessee might have been contained or mitigated if such authority were then in effect. (A $40,000 total judgment for fish killed was obtained against the polluter!) Such spills might not do as extensive damage to fish and wildlife resources if immediate `remedial measures are applied. We strongly favor such direction for the Secretary or his delegate to act immediately if the owner fails to do `so. Mr. Chairman, in `addition we feel th'at ample provisions must be made in thi's proposed legislation to control the use of toxic chemicals that find their way into our coastal `marine and inland waterways. Pesticides comprise one of the more "hazardous substances" to aquatic `resources. The nation had been `shocked into reality that pesticides could cause consid- erable damage, when introduced into the aquatic environment during the U.S. Public Flealth Service's Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control Investi- gations, concerning the results of studies made `along the lower Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico since 1960 into the ca'use of death involving millions of fish in these `waters. The result's of some three months of intensified investigation's carried on by a team of `engineers and `scientists from the USPHS `and the State of Louisiana directly involved water pollution `caused `by toxi'c, synthetic and organic material's. Findings indicated that aquatic life was particularly sensitive to pollution from certain synthetic and organic wastes in extremely minute proportions (less than one part per billion) that were ider~tified as causing death through new measuring techniques which enabled scientists to detect and measure toxic substances in quantities as small as parts ier trillion. Two pesticides, endrin and dieldrin, were identified as being directly involving in recurring massive "fish kills" in the Mississippi Drainage Basin and its estua- vine waters in the `Gulf of Mexico. Most of you people are probably familiar with the details `by now of this report. Historically, the warning flag should have been raised following the introduction of DDT as a "miracle" insecticide when it was soon found that side effects were serious en'ough to be considered of PAGENO="0519" 511 primary importance as to whether or not it was worth the risk of making appli- cation of this chemical. Congressman John Dingell of Michigan published an article in the April 10, 1968, Congressional Record from the "Michigan Out-Of-Doors" April, 1968, issue entitled "DDT Killing Fish: Lake Michigan Trout, Salmon are Hard- Hit." Researchers leave virtually no doubt that DDT residue in Lake Michigan is responsible for the die-off of coho salmon fry (15-20% mortality) in Michigan and Wisconsin hatcheries. This is transmitted from the lake-run mature females' ovaries, where it is concentrated in the oil droplets of the egg yolk. Director Ralph MacMullan of the Michigan Conservation Department warns of the dire consequences of the use of DDT in Lake Michigan areas to this currently-thriving coho salmon fishery, and urges considerate use of less persistent and easily biodegradable pesticides now available to agriculture. This department has is- sued instructions on storage and disposal of the DDT-type "hard" pesticides as contained in Appendix A, in hopes that continued use will &e greatly curtailed. These instructions, Mr. Chairman, may be of use to those so disposed to follow these words of warning-at least we hope so, maybe somewhat naively. Sport Fishing Institute, Mr. Chairman, has long been aware of and long pub- licly warned as to the intrinsic dangeas involved in the synthetic and organic materials, and some of the substantiated results of their relentless use being broadcast over tremendous areas without due concern for all of our natural resources. DDT w-as the mere beginning. Tragic results on aquatic life using DDT in forest insect spraying programs were convincingly demonstrated and publicly chronicled by the Institute and others in the cases of extentive destruc- tion of the organisms in New Brunswick's Miramichi River in 154, famous for Atlantic salmon, and a similar debacle in 1955 in the Yellowstone River, Montana. These are instances we don't forget. Since its availability in 1947, DDT has had several subsequent competitors tl1at have extremely dangerous and per- sistent characteristics. The more troublesome chlorinated hydrocarbons involv- ing more persistent effects than the organic phosphates are aidrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, endrin and others. By comparison with DDT, dieldrin and heptachlor are in the category of the hydrogen bomb compared to the atom bomb. Dieldrin itself is some twenty times as destructive of fish, game, song birds, beneficial insects, etc., as its predecessor DDT. I would like to cite a rather dramatic example as it was reported in SF1 BULLETIN No. 74, January, 1958, in the lead article entitled "Super Insecti- cides-Space-Age Pollutants." "Dieldrin was air-disseminated at the rate of one pound per acre over some 2,000 acres in May, 1955, in Florida, to kill sand-fly larvae . . . About 67 miles of ditches traversed the marshes w-here this treatment was conducted . . . 20- 30 tons of fish or about 1,175,000 fish of at least 30 species were estimated to have been killed in this treatment . . . The larger game and food fishies succumbed first . . . crab set upon and destroyed the moribund fishes, but next day were dead themselves . . . Apparently, all of the aquatic life within this Indian River area was completely destroyed." Mr. Chairman, this is merely to indicate to you and to your Committee that such cases as this were known and in public reports at least 13 years ago. Since that time, there have been many reports of aquatic life killed by such treatments and it has become increasingly evident that little or nothing is being done to stop this wholesale carnage. A sample of five of such reports is available as Ap- pendix B to this testimony. The immediate effects upon the aquatic organisms, in which we are particu- larly interested, may well be only a small aspect of the total panorama of the insecticide problem. Many are becoming alarmed at the various forms of fish and wildlife exhibiting growing concentrations of poisonous chemicals in their tissues and organs-animal protein that we consume as food, such as tuna, halbut, pheasants. A selective concentration of these toxic chemicals occurs when injected in oils-cod liver oil fed to babies being a prime example. The late Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING, already a classic, emphasized and illustrat- ed in various and diverse ways the vital warning that all should heed. With this exposition in mind, I doubt whether there be further need for me to dwell on these various facets of the inherent problems involved in the uncontrolled and widespread use of such "hazardous" chemicals. Dr. Jerome Wiesner, well known for his work as the Presidential Science Advisor, has claimed that health haz- ards of chemical pesticides are potentially greater than radioactive fallout! PAGENO="0520" 512 Mr. Chairman, denial of oil and deleterious chemicals to our waterways is absolutely essential. It behooves all of us to work vigorously toward coordina- tion of activity and unselfish guardianship of all of our natural resources. We feel that HR. 15906 would, with its added features over those contained in S. 2760, give this nation the "big stick" it needs to control such pollution. The Sport Fishing Institute, therefore, goes in favor and lends its full support to passage of this bill with inclusion of the above suggested considerations. Thank you. APPENDIX A The Michigan Department of Conservation Official News Bulletin dated April 18, 1968, tells how to store or get rid of "hard" pesticides. A. For proper storage and disposal of "hard" pesticides: 1. Store pesticides in a ëool, dry, well ventilated building away from foods or animal feed, preferably away from house or barn. Post the area with warning signs. 2. Keep pesticides under lock and key. 3. Keep pesticides in tl~eir original containers with lids tightly closed. Mark year of purchase on container with a wax pencil. 4. Inform fire department of any chemicals stored in quantity. 5. Do not store 2,4-D type herbicides with other pesticides. 43. Check the label for any other storage instructions or precautions. 7. Post a list of poison control centers near the storage site. B. To get rid of "hard" pesticides: 1. Check the label for special directions. 2. Do not reuse containers. 3. Bury all material at least 18 inches deep in a disposal pit in sandy soil, in an isolated area at least 1,000 feet from any water source. 4. Break glass corttainers and puncture and smash metal containers and bury them in the disposal pit. 5. Burn empty bags and fiber drums in an area where smoke will not endanger humans. Do not inhale the smoke. Wear respirator and goggles. Bury ashes and remaining residue in the disposal pit. 6. Do not burn containers which have held 2,4-D type herbicides as the fumes may injure surrounding crops. Do not burn containers containing chlorates. They may explode. 7. Do not wash out sprayers or dump excess materials in areas where they could contaminate water sources. Left-over spray mixtures should be poured into a pit in sandy soil. APPENDIX B In June, 1958, DDT was sprayed over 302,000 acres of spruce-fir forest, Aroo- stook County, Maine, to control spruce budworm. The result was considerable reduction of young-of-year trout in 1958, and large trout in 1959 in waters of this area. The period June to October, 1960, involved reports by the USPHS from 30 cooperating states indicating that agricultural pesticides and industrial wastes caused 70 per cent of 185 fish kills on 600 miles of streams and 5,000 acres of lakes. An average of 6,100 fish were observed in the pollution-caused kills, ranging from one hundred to five million. Agricultural poisons were listed in 40 per cent of the cases. Thirty-six state conservation agencies reported in 1960 that of 305 cases of fish kills, agricultural poisons accounted for 73,000 fish killed in 81 instances. The Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department was receiving at least one report weekly of fish losses in ponds and small lakes adjacent to areas where insecticides were being used in 1961. These reports are increasing and the chief of the department of fisheries stated that losses usually occurred after big rains following applications of insecticides!. During 1961, the USPHS received 411 notifications of pollution-caused fish kills in 45 state fish and game agencies. Nearly 15 million fish were reported killed in 263 instances (64 per cent) where numbers were estimated. River mileage affected, given in 240 reports, amounted to 1,686 miles. About 83 per cent of the kills were in rivers. Twenty-one per cent of the kills from known sources were attributed to agricultural poisons. PAGENO="0521" 513 RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am J. W. Penfoict of the Izaak Wal- ton League. The league has been organized for nearly 50 years, and its major interest throughout the years has been water pollution. One recent effort of ours is this little booklet, "Clean Water," which was produced with the help of the other major conser~ation organiza- tions, and is in the process now of distribution across the country. I gave a supply to the committee yesterday, in case any of the members wanted to have a look at it. Mr. ~hairn'ian, I want to speak about a couple of items in which all of the conservationists are interested. First of all, research. It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that the restructuring of section 6, while making no substantive changes, points up the growing emphasis on research and related activities and on systematic and prompt dis- semination of research findings and data. `We agree that there should be this emphasis. There is no question but that the country should accelerate Its efforts to disco~er and de- velop improved methods to measure the effects to discover and develop improved methods to measure the effects of pollutants `on water uses and to develop better systems for treating sewage `and other water- borne wastes to remove maximum possible amounts of physical, chem- ical, `and biolog~ical pollutants. We have but one fear, and it is an old fear with which conserva- tionists have had a lot of experience over the years; that is the argu- ment that action to abate pollution, using best present knowledge, be delayed until some time later when some research has been accom- plished. The ultimate knowledge will never be achieved, if only be- cause of population growth, increased complexities of society, the goods and services it requires and the creation of more sophisticated wastes. `We `support research in `all its ramifications, but we do not want the research effort used as an excuse for not doing what science and tech- nology knows `how to do today. One specific illustration of this undesired potential is the use of augmented streamfiow to meet water quality standards. Section 6, subsection (a) (6) provides that the Secretary shall develop improved method's "to evaluate the effects on water quality and water uses of augmented streamfiows to control water pollution not reasonably susceptible to other means of abatement." A person need only `review the transcripts of State hearings on water quality standards required by the `Water Quality Act of 1965 to find endless testimony urging stream flow augmentation as the "practical" alternative to construction of waste treatment facilities. We don't think this is `an acceptable or practical alternative. We do agree that the kinds of information such evaluations would provide, in the long run, will be important to sound and effective management of the total water resource. We reject in principle that it be used by anyone to avoid re- sponsibility for his own wastes. This is clearly a matter of proper administration of the act rather than the language of the `bill, Mr. Chairman, but we think it warrants mention before this committee. PAGENO="0522" 514 Another matter of concern to the league, though not directly ger- mane to the legislation before you is thermal pollution and particu- larly the no man's land of thermal pollution from nuclear power gen- erators licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission. AEC states it has no authority to even consider thermal pollution. The Interior Depart- ment has no authorities in the licensing procedures. Yet, thermal pol- lution from such plants is a live threat. The prospects for the pro- liferation of nuclear plants are large. Authorities and responsibilities should be clearly spelled out and assigned promptly, and before the problem gets way ahead of us. In conjunction with thermal and other water quality standards and with expanded research on criteria indicated, we have been happy to hear the Secretary expound on the principle that approved standards be set within safe limits, rather than at the extreme limit of what we believe aquatic life can tolerate. Let the error in setting standards, if any, be on the safe side. "This is a reasonable requirement," he said, "to protect our resources and aquatic life in the face of incomplete knowledge." This is standard engineering practice in designing any structure- a very generous safety factor is built into it. We don't think we can afford any less care in manipulating very sensitive aquatic environments. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the objectives and purposes of legislation before you as represented in 1-LIR. 15907, S. 2760, H.R. 15906, 1-LR. 14000 and 1-I.R. 13923. We appreciate the privilege of presenting our views. Thank you. (Prepa.red statement of Joseph W. Penf old follows:) STATEMENT BY J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. Chairman, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League. The League is a national membership society dedicated to the conserva- tion and wise use of America's natural resources. The national scandal of water pollution and the accelerating deterioration of our waters for fishing and all other public values was a prime reason for the organization of the League nearly a half century ago. We have over the years consistently and staunchly supported water pollution abatement and control programs at Federal, State and local levels. We are just as concerned today. The scope and variety of proposals now before your Committee are such as to confuse the average citizen. He might have had reason to suppose, with the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1060 on the books, coupled with the transfer of the Federal program to the Interior Department, that the basic legislative job had been accomplished, that the remaining task was to implement these programs fully and to follow through with whatever enforce- ment might be required to assure clean water. But things are seldom so simple. ADDITIONAL METHOD OF FINANCING WASTE TREATMENT WORKS The 1966 Act established a schedule of action to expedite the construction of municipal waste treatment works. Due to the Vietnam conflict and the national budget. however, we defaulted on that pledge-the appropriations have not been made. Now the financing provisions of H.R. 15907 are proposed. We support this as a workable alternative to direct appropriations under the 1066 formula. If it succeeds in maintaining the accelerating pace of treatment plant construction that is required, it will be worth the additional cost over direct appropriations. We cannot afford to have this program lag. Water quality standards do not clean up water. Surveillance programs do not clean up water. Research doesn't clean PAGENO="0523" 515 up water. Enforcement doesn't clean up water. Water is cleaned up by keeping the filth out of it in the first place. That is what waste treatment plants do. The construction grants program continues to be the core of the Federal-State-local effort. In the municipal phase of water pollution, the construction of treatment facilities is the basic measure of the success of the rest of the program. It is the basic key to securing the conipliance of the industrial sector. It is the public's major leverage against pollution from any source. Without the construction grants we might well be carrying on an exercise in futility. We support the provisions which would encourage better area wide planning and require systems of charges to amortize local share of the costs plus mainte- nance, operations and a reserve to meet planned expansion needs. Certainly all approved projects should meet State standards, conform with State water pollu- tion plans and be consistent with a river basin pollution control plan, if there is one. In supporting HR. 15907 we must note that its effectiveness will be answered en ly if the funds to implement it are indeed appropriated in the amounts and at the times specified in the authorization. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL The League supports 5. 2760, HR. 14000, HR. 15906 and others relating to oil pollution. H.R. 15906 would extend the provisions of S. 2760 for the control of oil pollution in the navigable waiters of the United States to the Contiguous Zone, the 9-mile zone beginning on the outer limits of the Territorial Sea. We think that is an improvement, as is adding a civil penalty for violations to crim- inal penalties. W.e agree that the present requirement that a discharge be "grossly negligent" before liability attaches should be deleted; that the bill cover Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Samoa. We do not agree that an owner of a vessel or a shore installation should entirely escape the responsibility to clean up or to pay the cost of clean up following an oil discharge caused by "an Act of God". This is a type of risk which may business or other enterprise must uni- formly acept as an inescapable part of the undertaking. ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL The League has long recognized ithe destruction from acid and other mine water pollution. We strongly suport S. 2760 and H.R. 14000 which would authorize the Secretary to develop with the States demonstration projects for the elimina- tion or control of such pollution. LAKE POLLUTION CONTI~OL We support 5. 2760 and the series of House bills calling for a research and denionistration program for the prevention, removal and control of natural or man-caused pollution in lakes. VESSEL POLLUTION CONTIiOL We support H.R. 16207 and H.R. 13923 which `would direct the Secretary of Interior to establish regulations for the contro.l of sewage, litter, garbage, sludge and other substances discharged by vessels into navigable waters. We recognize that this program involves some very complex problems for the recreational boater which will not be resolved overnight. A great majority of League members own or regularly use boats for a variety of recreational purposes which are de- pendent upon clean water. As recreational boaters, we can hardly consider our- selves immune from `responsibility for our own wastes. The bill provides for reasonable compliance `schedules, uniformity for various classes of boats and requires consultation with interested parties before issuance of the regulations. The bill provides for a system of `certification of devices which meet the standards to control the `discharge of sewage. Such a system would not be "proof-positive" of compliance with water quality standards-for example, the boatowner might neglect to add a chemical agent to a treatment `tank, although certification is based upon the' proper use of that agent. Nonetheless certification of devices is a practical way of securing wide spread compliance and will be the convenient way for boatowners to put their craft in compliance. PAGENO="0524" 516 ESTUARINE STUDY The League has deep concern with the protection of ostaurine areas for maximum production 0f fish `and shellfish, recre~jtion and esthetic values. Water pollution in all its forms is the basic threat to thb Nation's estuaries. H.R. 15907 makes no `substantive change in the provision's of the 1960 Act for the thidy of `estua'rine pollution, but it does extend the report `date to January 30, 1970 and makes the funds appropriated for the `study available until expended. Both are desirable amendments. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning we have given `strong support to the re- search, demonstration, investigations and training grants provisions of the Federal program. We now support Section 0 of HR. 15907 which we under- stand makes no substantive changes in the present Act, but revises, clarifies and extends the provisions of Sections 5 and 0 of the present Act, and places no limit on appropriations after FY 1909. THERMAL POLLUTION It seems to the Izaak Walton League, Mr. Chairman that the restructuring of Sec. 0, while making no substantive changes, points up the growing emphasis on research and related activities and on systematic and prompt dissemina- tion of research findings and data. We agree that there should be this emphasis. There is no question but that the country should accelerate its efforts to dis- cover and develop improved methods to measure the effects of pollutants on water uses and to develop better systems for treating sewage and other water borne wastes to remove maximum possible amounts of physical, chemical and biological pollutants. We have but one fear, and it is an old fear with which conservationists have had a lot of experience over the years; that is the argument that action to abate pollution, using best present knowledge, be delayed until some time Eater when some research has been accomplished. The ultimate knowledge will never be achieved, if only because of population growth, increased complexities of society, the goods and services it requires and the creation of more sophisticated wastes. We support research in all its ramifications, but we do not want the research effort used as an excuse for not doing what science and technology knows how to do today. One specific illustration of this undesired potential is the use of augmented stream flow to meet water quality standards. Sec. 6, Subsection (a) (6) pro- vides that the Secretary shall develop improved methods "to evaluate the effects on water quality and water uses of augmented stream flows to control water pollution not reasonably susceptible to other means of abatement". A person need only review the transcripts of State hearings on water quality standards required by the Water Quality Act of 1965 to find endless testimony urging stream flow augmentation as the "practical" alternative to construc- tion of waste treatment facilities. We don't think this is an acceptable or prac- tical alternative. We do agree that the kinds of information such evaluations would provide, in the long run, will be important to sound and effective man- agement to the total water resource. We reject in principle that it be used by anyone to avoid responsibility for his own wastes. This `is clearly a matter of proper administration of the Act rather than the language of the bill, Mr. Chairman, but we think it warrants mention before this Committee. Another matter of concern to the League, though not directiy germane to the legislation before you is thermal pollution and particularly the no-man's land of thermal pollution from nuclear power generators licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission. AEC states it has no authority to even consider thermal pollution. The Interior Department has no authorities in the licensing proce- dures. Yet, thermal pollution from such plants is a live threatS The prospects for the proliferation of nuclear plants are large. Authorities and responsibilities should be clearly spelled out and assigned promptly, and before the problem gets way ahead of us. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS In conjunction with thermal and other water quality standards and with expanded research on criteria indicated, we have been happy to hear the Secre- tary expound on the principle that approved standards be set within safe limits, PAGENO="0525" :517 rather than at the extreme limit of what we believe aquatic life can tolerate. Let the error in setting standards, if any, be on the safe side. "This is a rea- sonable requirement," he said, "to protect our resources and aquatic life in the face of incomplete knowledge." This is standard engineering practice in designing any structure-a very gen- erous safety factor is built into it. We don't think we can afford any less care in manipulating very sensitive aquatic environments. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the objectives and purposes of legislation before you as represented in HR. 15907, S. 2760, HR. 15906, HR. 14000, HR. 13923. We appreciate the privilege of presenting Our view-s. VESSEL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. MCCARTI-IY (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Penfold. rllhe next witness, Dr. Smith? Dr. SMITH. Mr. Gutermuth. Mr. G-UTERMTJTH. Mr. Chairman, I am vice president of the Wild- life Management Institute, which is one of the older national con- servation organizations in this country. It is a pleasure for me to join with the representatives of these other national conservation organizations in this discussion of the problems and opportunities in water pollution abatement. The many proposals before the committee are an indication of the national importance that is attached to this subject. Water is one of the most fundamental of our Nation's resources; it touche on every facet of society. Its substantial role in guiding the settlement and development of this country continues today, but that role is being altered significantly by the constant expailsion of popu- lation, the unprecedented demands for water for all kinds of con- suinptive and nonconsumptive purposes, and the awesome outpouring of municipal, agricultural, industrial, and other wastes. I will confine my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the general subject of the pollution of water from ships and other watercraft. In discussing the invitatiou to appear before the committee as a panel, the conservation groups decided that they could be of most assistance by discussing specific areas of concern rather than by at- tempting to cover eath of the may bills in detail. This procedure held the most promise of avoiding repetition and focusing attention on the major Issues. For this reason, the Institute's remarks will center on pollution from watercraft. I am sure the committee realizes that the Institute supports and endorses the comments of the other conserva- tion organizations represented here. As I observed earlier, water had a major role in influencing the pattern of settlement and deveolpment of this country. The ports, bays, harbors, and channels whinh experience a heavy vessel traffic usually are located in areas having concentrations of people, industry, and commerce. Additionally, water is the focal point of much outdoor recreation. and these same areas near concentrations; of people are used for sailing and other recreational boating, including the use of boats for fishing, as well as for swimming and other water sports. It makes little sense to conservationists for municipalities and in- dustries along these waters to be required to treat their wastes; when, at the same time, there is no corresponding requirement that vessels refrain from discharging ballast, bilge, and wash waters, or sewage, PAGENO="0526" 518 oils, litter, and other pollutants into the same waiters. The goal of pollution abatement programs is to abate pollution so as to effectively reduce the volume of pollutants entering natural waters. The con- tinued discharge of pollutants and other wastes from watereraft only complicates an already complicated pollution abatement problem in navigable waters. The situation is further, intensified by the mobile nature of the ves- sels that are discharging the pollutants and by the great diversity of materials that are involved. The vessels move into areas that already have critical pollution problems and can greatly aggravate conditions there. In a similar way, large fleets of recreational boats may congre.- gate in a sheltered bay or cove, with the effect that a tremendous bur- den of pollution `suddenly is added to the water. These problems are real, and they are mounting every day `as the mimber of commercial and recreational watercraft increases, as cornercial tankers of greater hauling oapacity are laftmched, and as their cargoes become mor'~ diverse. Catastrophes with tankers in recent months are indications of some of the things that can happen. But it should be kept in mind that the wastes already being discharged from commercial and recreational watercraft are `of substantial volume, and while the results of this re- curring discharge are not as dramatic or singular as the TorTe?! Canyon wreck, for example, without doubt they are annually destroying water- related resources and values of infinitely greater magnitude and over a much broader area. I will not attempt to summarize the sizable records of problems and contradictions that have been compiled. Pollution emanating from ves- sels in the navigable waters in the United States already is seriously contaminating the environment. The problems are both local and regional in cause and effect, and all available evidence points to their intensification in the absence of corrective action. Certainly, the demonstrated destruction of environmental values, including the hazards that are presented to public health and welfare, leaves no questi'on but that this is a problem of large magnitude. It arises f'rom several sources, among them the lack of uniform guide- lines and requirements, the absence of consistent and vigorous en- forcement, the unavailability of a continuing surveillance and moni- toring network, inadequate information on which to base programs, and for many other reasons. Conservationists sincerely hope that the committee will recommend appropriate action to counteract this seri'ous source of waterborne pol- lution in the legislation reported. It presently constitutes one of the largest, single sources of pollution in the navigable waters of the United States. It is time that steps are taken to prevent it from going untended any longer. (Prepared statement of C. R. Gutermuth follows:) STATEMENT OF C. R. GTJTERMUTH, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE VESSEL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Manage- ment Institute. The Institute is one of the older national conservation organiza- tions. Its program `has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in `the public interest since 1911. PAGENO="0527" 519 It is a pleasure to join with representatives of other national conservation orga- nizations in this discussion of the problems and opportunities in water pollution abatement. The many proposals before the committee are an indication of the national importance that is attached to this subject. Water is one of the most fundamental of our nation's resources; it touches on every facet of society. Its siibstantial role in guiding the settlement and development of this country con- tinues today, hut that role is being altered significantly by the constant expansion of population, the unprecedented demands for water for all kinds of consumptive and non-consumptive purposes, and the awesome outpouring of municipal, agri- cultural, industrial, and other wastes. Today, as never before, water can limit growth and development. This is be- cause the natural capacity of water to assimilate society's wastes has been ex- ceeded in many areas and the values associated with and derived from water are decreasing or have, in fact, been greatly diminished. In numerous areas, water has been degrade'd to the point that it is no longer tolerable to society. Munici- palities and development commissions are concerned because industry is finding water too dirty for use and too costly to reclaim, so industry is going beyond traditional locations in many instances for installation sites. The public is show- ing increasing intolerance of unsightly and offensive waters. The man on the street is taking an active role in promoting clean water campaigns, and sizeable bond issues have been authorized all over the country in support of needed pollu- tion abatement programs. There also is mounting evidence that the accumulations of technical materials, such as pesticides, have implications on aquatic life that are not clearly understood. In fact, involvement of pesticides with coho salmon in Lake Michigan demonstrates that tremendous damage can be done to the natural aquatic environment before the consequences become obvious to man. All of this is part of man's awakening and responsive interest in the restoration and maintenance of the quality of his environment. People have seen the unneces- sary and disheartening consequences of man's wasteful misuse of resources. They also have experienced the benefits that can be achieved from the management and restoration of resources. I believe that the chairman and the members of the committee will agree that the national interest in restoring and preserving the quality of the environment is intensifying each year. Many of us also appreciate that this committee and the Congress has been responsive to this national concern since there have been repeated and successful efforts `to strengthen and broaden appropriate federal authority to cope with the serious environmental pollution problems. Our `presence here today is an indication that still more must he done. I will confine my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the general subject `of the pollu- tion of water from ships and other waterci~aft. In discussing the invitation to appear before the committee as a panel, the conservation groups decided that they could be of most assistance by discussing specific areas of concern rather than by `attempting to cover each of the many bills in detail. This procedure held the most promise of avoiding repetition and focusing attention on the major issues. For this reason, the Institute's remarks will center on poHution from watercraft. I am sure the committee realizes that the Institute supports and endorses the comments of the other conservation organizations represented here. As I observed earlier, water had a major role in influencing the pattern~ of settlement and development of this country. The ports, bays, harbors, `and chan- nels which experience a heavy vessel traffic usually are located in areas having concentrations of people, industry, and commerce. Additionally, water is the focal point of much outdoor recreation, and these same areas near concentrations of people are used for sailing and other recreational boating, including the use of boats for fishing, as well as for swimming and other water sports. It makes little sense to conservationists for municipalities and industries along these waters to be required to treat their wastes when, at the same time, there is no corresponding requirement that vessels refrain from discharging ballast, bilge and wash waiters, or sewage, oils, litter and other pollutants into the same waters. The goal of pollution abatement programs is to abate pollution so as to effectively reduce the volume of pollutants entering natural wa'ters. The con- tinued discharge of pollutants and other wastes from watercraft only complicates an `already complicated pollution abatemen't problem in navigable waters. The situation is further intensified by the mobile nature of the vessels `that are discharging the pollutants and by the great diversity `of materials that are involved. The vessels move into areas that already have critical pollution prob- lems and can greatly aggravate conditions, there. In a similar way, large fleets of PAGENO="0528" 520 recreational boats may congregate in a sheltered bay or cove, with the effect that a tremendous burden of pollution suddenly is added to the water. These problems are real, and they are mounting every day as the number of commercial and recreational watercraft increases, as commercial tankers of greater hauling capacity bre launched, and as their cargoes become more diverse. Catastrophes with tankers in recent months are indications of some of the things that can happen. But it should be kept in mind that the wastes' already being discharged from commercial and recreational watercraft are of substantial volume, and while the results of this recurring discharge are not as dramatic or singular as the Torrey Canyon wreck, for example, without doubt they are an- nually destroying water-related resources and values of infinitely greater mag- nitude and over a much broader area. The Department of the In4erior study report on "Wastes From Watercraft" (Senate Document No. 48) estimates there are about 46,000 documented commer- cial vessels, 65,000 non-documented commercial fishing vessels, 1,500 federal vessels, and 8 million recreational watercraft using tim navigable waters of the Uni'ted States. There also are about 40,000 foreign ship entrances recorded each year. Their sewage and other wastes are being discharged into the waters of the United States, a practice that has been followed since the beginning of navigation. The discharges `can greatly exceed the ability *of the receiving waters to assimilate them. Public health may be endangered by the release of ballast waters brought in from foreign harbors. The transient nature of water-borne pollutants poses a hazard to areas used for water-contact `sports, drinking water supplies or shellfish beds. Organic wastes land nutrients promote algal growth, the lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and, in `addition to harming aquatic life, may produce offensive odors and stimulate the growth of undesirable vegetation. Reports show, Mr. Chairman, tha:t 29 states `have laws to regulate vessel dis- charges, but `these vary greatly in `their coverage. Another 12 states have statutes `that apply to recreational craft. Other minimal efforts are being made, such as by some watercraft operated by federal agencies, but these `efforts in the main are only minor in comparison to the problems tha't exist. There is a `scant record `of `the `degree `to which the various statutes are enforced, if at alL And furthermore, there is no measure of their adequacy to meet `the Situation that exists and is worsenIng steadily. I suspect that many `of the `laws are aimed at eliminating hazards to navigation rather `than `at maintaining *the quality of water. I will not `attempt to summarize the sizeable records of `problems and con- tradictions `that `have been compiled. Pollution emanating from vessels in the navigable waters in the United States already is seriously contaminating the environment. The problems are both local `and regional in cause and `effect, and all available `evidence points to their Intensification in `the absence of cor- rective action. Certainly, the demonstrated destruction `of environmental ~alues, including the `hazards that are presented `to public health and welfare, leaves no question but that this is a problem `of large magnitude. It arises fro'm several sources, `among `them, the lack of uniform guidelines and requirements, the ab- sience of consistent and vigorous enforcement, the unavailability of a continuing surveillance `and monitoring network, inadequate information `on which to base programs, and for `ma'ny other reasons. `Conservationists sincerely `hope th'a't th'e committee will recommend appro- pri'ate action to `counteract this seri'ous source of wa,ter~bborne pollution in the legislation reported. It presently constitutes `one of the largest, single sources of pollution in the navigable waters of the United States. It is time that steps are taken to prevent it from going untended `any longer. WATER POLLTJTION AND SCENIC AREAS Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutermuth. Dr. SMITH. Mr. Tupling i's next. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Tupling, the Washington representative of the Sierra Club. Mr. TUTPLING. Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Club is particularly con- cerned about the impact of pollution on scenic `areas. It goes without Saying that polluted water and scenic grandeur are mutually incom- PAGENO="0529" 521 patible. At the same time, we see the preservation of unspoiled natural areas as `a major factor in pollution abatement. Watershed manage- ment is an inherent benefit from national parks, national forests, al1d wilderness areas. Yet the trees have been removed from enough Amer- ican mountainsides to demonstrate the direct relationship between for- ests and not only an adequate layer of topsoil, but also the existence of a stable water supply. But at this point in history, it is too late to depend on any vast reforestation program to reverse the pollution trend. We must expand governmental programs a~ all levels `so that water purity can become the measure of an advancing American society. The committee deserves commendation for the attention being given to all facets of the water pollution problem. The Sierra Club supports the principles of proposals now before you to accelerate construction of waste treatment works, to curb pollution of water sources by oil, and to control acid or other mine pollution of watersheds and drainage areas. We urge prompt action. Thank you. (Prepared statement of Lloyd Tupling follows:) STATEMENT OF LLOYD TUPLING, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB WATER POLLUTION AND SCENIC AREAS Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, one of the anachronisms of his- tory is that the level of a society's cultural and economic advancement can be measured by the degree to which man has contaminated his potable water supply. The Seine, the Thames, the Hudson and Po'tomac are mute evidence of this tragic fact. The high degree of pollution is all the more difficult to understand when we realize that the total supply of water available for the world's need has not changed measurably since the day of creation. The Sierra Club is particularly concerned about the impact of pollution on scenic areas. It goes without saying that polluted water and scenic grandeur are mutually incompatible. At the same time, we see the preservation of unspoiled natural areas as a major factor in pollution abatement. Watershed management is an inherent benefit from national parks, national forests', and wilderness areas. Yet the tree's have been removed from enough American mountainsides `to dem,- onstrate the direct relationship between forests and not only an adequate layer of topsoil, but also the existence of a stable water supply. Hydrographic studies have shown that, where 75 per cent of Western range land was covered with trees and plants, water runoff was 2 per cent of the amount of rain falling each hour. Soil loss under these conditions amounted to only about 5 per cent of a ton on one acre in an hour. But where a mere 10 per cent of the land supported trees and shrubs, 75 per cent of the rain ran off each hour, carry- ing with it tons of soil and thereby complicating water treatment problems. The ax and chain-saw take a toll on purity of our water supply while un- treated industrial and municipal wastes pour into'our lakes and streams. But at this point in history, it is too late to depend on any vast reforestation program to reverse the pollution trend. We must expand governmental programs at all levels so that water purity can become the measure of an advancing American society. The Committee deserves commendation for the attention being given to all facets of the water pollution problem. The Sierra Club supports the principles of proposals now before you to accelerate construction of waste treatment works, to curb pollution of water sources by oil, and to con'trol acid or other mine pollu- tion of watersheds and drainage areas. We urge prompt action. In conclusion, I wish to include in the hearing record the text of the water pollution abate'ment policy statement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club on May 4, 1057. This statement serves as the basis for the Club's support of water pollution control programs over the years. The text follows: 04-376----OS------34 PAGENO="0530" 522 1. GENERAL POLICY May 4, 1957-Board endorses the following policy statement of the National Wildlife Federation with respect to pollution of natural waters: "The Federation asserts the principle that the producer of contaminating wastes, whether citizen, industry or municipality, has a social responsibility and moral obligation voluntarily to prevent the pollution of public waters. At the same time we recognize that regulations and enforcement are necessary to restore and to preserve clean waters. In keeping with the aforestated principle, and in recognition of growing water shortages and of the seriousness of the pollution menace to the public health and welfare, the Federation declares the following policies and objectives in water pollution control: 1. Sound and effective pollution control laws and programs in every state. 2. Adequate federal authority to clean up pollution in interstate waters in cases where the states, interstate or private agencies cannot or will not do the job. 3. Adequate sewage treatment facilities in every community; adequate waste prevention or waste treatment by every industry. 4. Adequate research by public and private agencies aimed at improving the efficiency of sewage treatment and at solving difficult problems of indus- trial waste control. ENFORCEMENT Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Tupling. Dr. Smith. Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we of the Citizens Committee are in general agreement with what you have heard today, and we wish to make an appeal to this committee, which perhaps is not immediately germane in `the legislation before you-this is the problem of enforce- ment. We have been very distressed, and we have also been dismissed by many as being too impatient, too puristic in the establishment of State standards; but we nevertheless are constrained to appeal to this com- mittee to see what influence can be achieved in order to accelerate some enforcement actions. I am sure, as the chairman has indicated previously, that this com- mittee and many Members of the Congress, not on this committee, as well as the conservationists have supported these programs for a long period of time, back when it was a real struggle to get any public recognition for a program just getting underway. We `were `cautioned then, too. We were first `cautioned that impatience could mean disaster to the entire program. We were urged `patience at the time Mr. `Guterinuth `and `others tried so desperately `to upgrade the water pollution `agency `in the HEW Department. We `were cau- tioned again that a level `of experience was necessary before one could move vigorously in this `area. We were cautioned `again to inhibit to a greater degree our impatience at the lack of funds for a significant enforcement prograan. When the transfer o'f the water pollution contro'l agency from HEW to the Department of Interior was acoompli~hed, another plea for restraint was urged upon us `because tl~e new Department necessarily had to become adjusted to its t'ask. When this transition period `ap- peared to have come to `a `close, we were urged again to exercise serious restraint in terms of undue criticism as the Departrneiit went `about evalitating State plans that were presented to it. It is not our primary effort to put people in jail for violations. We are not interested in a punitive measure for penalty's sake alone but we PAGENO="0531" 523 do feel thivt `a greater vigor must take place in pursuing the problems w~hen they are identified. To the best of our knowledge, as of March 26, 1968, 43 conferences have been convened. Only one, to our knowledge, has gone to adjuciica~ tion and `where the Federal court `has retained jurisdiction rn the case of St. Joseph, `Mo., area on the Missouri River. We ttre not suggesting that each `of these cases should be rushed `as soon as the law will allow court `action. Our principal matter of concern is that once public hearings have taken Place and the pro'cedu:re of the act has been satisfied, an'd I think the procedure of the act leans over ba~kward to make sure that it `is thoroughly democratic, once this has `been done and the conferences have been convened, the recommended compliance has got to be placed to ffnd out whether they in fact have complied with the target dates that have been set as part of the conference. In addition to that, we have got to move up, it seems to me, because some of the early target dates were based on the older techniques in antipollution control, and in many instances funds were not available, and then funds did become available. It seems to me that these have to be reviewed because we are cer- tainly not making the progress in terms of enforcement that are necessary. And I think these conferences have to be followed up. We do not have the personnel at the present time. We do not have the money allocated to it. But it does little good if we urge upon com- munities to establish sewage treatment plants and others, if we are not urging constantly other areas to do the same. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES Now, I must confess that one of the deepest and most significant problems is trying to get the Federal Government to do this job by themselves; in other words, police their own establishments. I have here a speech on the "Water Pollution Control Policy for Federal Agencies," which was an address by Percy H. Andrews, di- rector, Robert A. Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. This was given in January. The first paragraph is excellent: Practice what you preach has long been one of the cornerstones' of our ethical order and is basic to the policy and programs of the Federal Activities Coordin- ation Division and of Water Pollution `Control Policy for Federal Agencies. Any orgaiization guilty of the same faults it seeks to correct is bound to be sev- erely criticized by the very people whose support is essential for successful corrective `action. That had a fine democratic flavor to it, and I began to read with great eager, until I turned to page 2, and the rest points out great difficulties and why we have not made greater progress than we have. It seems to me that it undercuts the whole moral fiber of an en- forcement program if we have 20,000 installations owned and oper- ated by Federal agencies that are not putting their own house in order. Now, we have the Executive Order 11288, which was signed by President Johnson on July 2, 1966. This order is crisp in its language and incisive as to purpose. There is no reason in the world why this PAGENO="0532" 524 should be misunderstood. We are perfectly aware, also, that the bu- reaucratic game is being played. Members of this committee know what it is. I was a bureaucrat long enough to know that if I had to be cut somewhere in my budget, I would put that budget up in a posture to where the Budget Bureau or Congress would lop off what I wanted to have lopped off. When one places in a budget a line item for pollu- tion abatement facilities, he is perfectly aware that when it becomes appropriate for budgets to be cut, this item will be a sitting duck. On February 23, 1965, the Special Subcommittee on Public Works of the Senate held hearings on Federal Installations, Facilities and Equipment Control Act. On page 43 of these hearings, a brief col- loquy between the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Edmund Muskie, and Mr. John C. Bryson, a director of the Delaware Water Pollution Commission, is reported. Senator Muskie inquired: Mr. Bryson, in your prepared statement you made a point I think we should emphasize; that is that these agencies are primarily concerned with their principal mission, not with pollution treatment, so that in their budget presen- tations they are concerned in the Department of Defense, for example, primarily with requesting dollars necessary to carry out their primary mission, and so understandably in their presentation to the Budget Bureau, to the Appropria- tions Committees of the Congress, they are likely to emphasize their primary mission and not this one, and if dollars have to be saved this is where the dollars are likely to be saved. Is that your analysis of what happens? And Mr. Bryson answered: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we do not pretend to know the precise vehicle by which the rather broad, varied, and often disconnected elements of the bureaus of the Federal Government can be controlled as to pollu- tion. We do feel that a reappraisal on the part of the committee is going to have to take shape, not only for the intrinsic value of cleanup alone but for the example that is being set to the States in their water pollution control enforcement actions and to those involved in munici- pal or commercial pollution. Unless something is done regarding the Federal installations it will stand as a monument to the inability of the Federal Government to clean up pollution that has been occasioned by its own actions. Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you and members of the com- mittee for giving us the opportunity to present our views in these most important areas of water pollution control and abatement. Thank you. (Prepared statement of Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SEcRETARY OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., Secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conserva- tion organization with offices in Washington, D.C. The number of bills pending before the Committee in regard to water pollution control and abatement cover a variety of subjects and present a scope somewhat beyond our capacity to deal with in any substantive detail. As a result, our comments will deal only with particular elements of these measures. PAGENO="0533" 525 S. 2760 as passed by the Senate is a measure long needed as the problems to ~wMch it is addressed are pervasive and have not been ameliorated significantly by any activity to date. Take pollution, mine water damage, and the impact of oil upon all elements of the ecology are so obvious that the problems they present do not need to be documented. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL There has been a tendency in Federal regulation procedure to provide two obvious avenues of escape for polluters. While we support the efforts contained in S. 2760 for emergency cleean-up in order to minimize the pollutive effects of `oil, the basic effort, it occurs to us, should be the prevention of these circum- stances. While we are aware that no preventive policy can be 100% effective, cer- tainly the number of occasions of oil spillage or oil escape can be minimized by vigorous enforcement action. To allow vessels or installations to pollute the waters either accidentally or on the basis of no proven malfeasance is to abrogate effective enforcement action. It would occur to us that this has not been the pattern of the past but on the contrary, if a violation occurs this may be one of *the arguments offered by the defendant if the defendant chooses to appeal a reg- ulatory ruling to the courts. To make the regulatory agencies solely responsible when a violation of the regulation takes place is improper and restrictive if the aim of such enforcement is to achieve widespread compliance. We prefer H.R. 15906 since the enforcement provisions of this measure appear to us to be stronger and more capable of being implemented than those contained in S. 2760. The principal deficiency however, in our judgment, of H.R. 15906 is essentially the same. ADDITIONAL METHOD OF FINANCING WASTE TREATMENT WORKS We support the principles establised in HR. 15907, which would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. `The basic purport `of the legislation is to accelerate the waste treatment construction grant `program by a new method of `financing. This measure would `authorize the Secretary of the Interior `to com- mit the Federal Government to contracts with state, interstate, or local public bodies by which the Secretary would pay to `these governmental bodies required ~amounts over a fixed period `of time but not to exceed thirty years. The present provisions of the act permit federal payments from 30 to 50% of the cost of con- struction of waste treatment works. The proposed legislation would permit the local and state governmental bodies to issue bonds covering the entire cost of `the treatment works and the federal payment would be available for such bodies `to pay the principal and interest on the bonds issued. In short, this would per- mit the Federal Government to guarantee the entire bond, which would be inclu- sive of the Federal and non-Federal shares. While these bonds would not be tax- exempt, as issued by the local governmental bodies, the payment stru'cture au- thorized the Secretary would have the effect of reducing the interest to the states `to rates comparable to municipal tax-exempt bonds. It `appears to us that the bill provides `the necessary safeguards in authorizing the waste treatment system and also contains in Section 8(c) of the present act an amendment which would provide the proper transition from the present method of financing to that proposed in the legislation. The amendment of this legislation to Section 8(b) of the act would continue the present authorization of funds to be appropriated in 1969-71 and would also authorize appropriations for an indefinite period in order that the principal and interest payments, which become the obligation of the Federal Gos~ernment, be liquidated under the new authority. A failure to do this would,. in our judgment, make it impossible for us to make `any progress with th'e present back-log ef sewage `treatment facility needs, as well `as to kee)~ up with the iiresent pollution problem,s `occurring on all fronts `due to the population expansion and to the indu~tria'l and technological expansion. `The present legislation would establish essentially `a contract authority f''or the agency but `the provision's `at the legisla- tion would not allow `such authority until the Congress ha's passed an a~propria- tions act for fiscal year 1969, and two succeeding fiscal ycars, which would establish the `level of such contract authority. ~ir. Oh'airn~an, it appears obvious from the experience we baTe (had to date that something bold and imaginative must be done if the sewage treatment PAGENO="0534" 526 needs of this country are to be met. The suggested legislation appears to us to be a genuine effort in this direction. Only recently the authorizations have been put at approximately 3/4 of a billion dollars and this level was decided after the most laborious and careful hearings by the committees of the Congress and extensive discus~ions on the floor of both Houses of Congress as to the critical need that such an authorization represented. Subsequently, we are all aware of the problems of funding much more than 1/3 of the amount authorized to be appropriated. While this may not be critical in many other areas of the Federal Budget, it is of vital i:mpo'rtance to the program of water pollution control abatement. The impact upon health, recreation, and the general quality of our very existenre has been hanging in the balance for too long a time to permit a condition where we fall a little farther *behind each year to continue. Unless action of some drastic proportions is taken now, financial and technical problems may be so large that the community's ability to overcome either may be questionable. ENFORCEMENT Mr. Chairman, we have been most distressed at the problem of enforcement. While many of us have been dismissed as being too impatient, and too purist in the establishment of State standards, we nevertheless are constrained to appeal to `this Committee for an acceleration of enforcement action. The Oh'airman, I am sure, will recall that conservationists have worked for a long period of years in support of the Chairman, this Committee, and other Congressional leaders in order to achieve a responsible `and viable Federal ~tater pollution control and abatement program. I need `not recall to the Chairman the long and, what at that time `appeared to `be, unproductive years `of effort to gain public `recognition for a program ju;st `getting under way. We were cautioned at every turn of the road that impatience could well mean distaster for the entire program. We were urged patience at the time Mr. Gutermuth and others tried so desperately to up-grade the water pollution agency in the HEW Department. We were cautioned again that a `level of experience was necessary `before one could move vigorously in this area. We were cautioned again to inhibit to a greater degree our impatience at the lack of funds for a significant enforcement `program. When the transfer of the water Pollution Control agency from HEW to the Department of Interior was accomplished another plea f'or restraint was urged `UpOfl 115 because the new Department necessarily had to become `adjusted to its task. When this transition period :a~ppeared t'o have come to a close, we were urged again to exercise serious restraint in terms of undue criticism as the Department went about evaluating State plans that were presented to it. It is not our primary effort to put people in jail for violations. We are not interested in a punitive measure for penalty's sake alone but we do feel that a greater vigor must take place iii pursuing the problems when they are identified. To the best of our knowledge, as of March 26, 1068, forty-three conferences have been convened. Only one, to our knowledge, has gone to adjudication and where the Federal Court has retained jurisdiction in the case of St. Joseph, Missouri area on the Missouri River. We are not suggesting that each of these cases should be rushed as soon as the law will allow court action. Our principal matter of concern is that once public hearings have taken place and that the procedures of the act have been satisfied and that conferences have been convened, that recommended compliance be more carefully policed and target dates be moved up with greater pressure exerted in order to clean up many of these areas. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES It has occured to us, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps one of the main reasons for our failure in this regard ha's been the seeming inability of the Federal Govern- ment to make `significant strides in having the some 20,000 installations owned and operated by Federal agencies to clean up their own pollution. I do not need to tell this Committee, which has made every effort within it's authority to facilitate the Federal Government's putting its own house in order, that from every evidence `that we have the strides made by Federal Government in this regard have not been significant. We are not making this statement without due consideration and we are not unreasonable in assuming that the entirety of all the problem areas should have been cleaned up by this date. But certainly more evidence of accomplishment should be indicated by this time. The Federal Gov- PAGENO="0535" 527 eriiment should provide the leadership, should be out in front, and should serve as a model as to how remedial action at these installations can be accomplished. To say there is no money available is to beg the question. We do not accept this reason from commercial polluters. We say simply that the health and well-being of the community demand pollution abatement. It occurs to us that agencies are playing a close game, as the committees in the Congress I am sure know better than do we. The way in which budget requests are presented to the Congress may have a great deal to do with whether appropriations are available to carry out the pollution abatement program. We are also aware of Executive Order 11288, entitled "Prevention, Control and Abatement of Water Pollution by Fed- eral Activities", which was signed by the President on July 2, 1966. The language of the Executive Order is crisp, the direction is clear, but alas, the results have not followed. When one places in a budget a line item for pollution abatement facilities he is perfectly aware that when it becomes appropriate for budgets to be cut this item will be a sitting duck. On February 23, 1965 the Special Subcommittee on Public Works of the Senate held hearings on Federal Installations, Facilities and Equipment Con- trol Act. On page 43 of these hearings, a brief colloquy between the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Edmund Muskie and Mr. John C. Bryson, a Director of the Delaware Water Pollution Commission, is reported. Senator Muskie inquired: "Mr. Bryson, in your prepared statement you made a point I think we should emphasize; that is that these agencies are primarily concerned with their principal mission, not with pollution treatment, so that in their budget presenta- tions they are concerned in the Department of Defense, for example, primarily with requesting the dollars necessary to carry out their primary mission, and so understandably in their presentation to the Budget Bureau, to the Appropriations Committees of the Congress, they are likely to emphasize their primary mission and not this one, and if dollars have to be saved this is where dollars are likely to be saved. Is that your analysis of what happens ?" Mr. Bryson: "Yes, sir." Mr. Chairman, we do not pretend to know the precise vehicle by which the rather broad, varied and often disconnected elements of the Bureaus of the Federal Government can be controlled as to pollution. We do feel that a re- appraisal on the part of the Committee is going to have to take shape, not only for the intrinsic value of clean up alone but for the example that is being set to the States in their water pollution control enforcement actions and to those involved in municipal or commercial pollution. Unless something is done regard- ing the Federal installations it will stand as a monument to the inability of the Federal Government to clean up pollution that has been occasioned by its own actions. Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you and members of the Committee for giving us the opportunity to present our views in these most important areas of water pollution control and abatement. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think the last point you make certainly is a very valid one, because it is obvious that we cannot without integrity and forcefulness enforce these laws on commercial and municipal polluters if the Federal Government itself is not putting its own house in order. * Dr. SMITh. Mr. Chairman, any inquiries you wish to make to the gentlemen here who constitute the panel, I am sure they will be very happy to respond. RESPONSIBILITY IN OIL POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. MCCARTHY. There was one point that emerged in this morning's hearings that I wonder if any of you gentlemen have any suggestions about. This concerns oil pollution, and it was brought out'by the repre- sentatives of the maritime unions that the Senate bill was rather harsh in proposing to impose rather severe penalties, including imprison- ment, for discharges of oil. PAGENO="0536" 528 Their contention was that in most cases the seamen and the masters of these vessels, it was just beyond their controL Many of these ships are not ships, but skins, that they are constructed in such a fashion, for instance the oil tanker has the skin of the ship so that a rivet easily be- comes loose and of course it is just oil oozing out. The orientation of this is such that any excess oil goes overboard. This has been built in-leakage is built into the ships. I asked Mr. Caihoon this morning about the existing ships, if they could be modified. He said they could. You could have a spill tank so that when the oil spills over it will go down to a spill tank rather than into a lake or ocean or what have you. I am wondering if Mr. G-ute.rmuth or somebody has some specific suggestions to offer the committee on what we might do in this area? Mr. G-UTERMUTH. Mr. Chairman, maybe I should say that I have been coming down here, on one type of water pollution abatement hearing or another, for 25 years. And these objections on the part of people, and the presenting of their reasons for not being able to comply with reasonable and practical requirements for abatement, their reasons for saying that it cannot be done, are not new to us at all. We have been putting up with this for many, many years. And we get this in all phases of conservation activity. I was delighted, while I have not had a chance to study and analyze the entire statement by the representatives from the American Petro- leum Institute yesterday, I was delighted to hear them come in here and recommend adequate insurance protection, providing liability funds to clean up these messes. Now, much of this, quite obviously, is being brought on by indif- ference on the part of many people in many walks of life. We are building large tankers today, and then we are going into this jumbo- lizing of ships. We take a present-day ship, which does not quite satisfy people from an economy standpoint, and we cut the middle out of it, and insert a great big addition to the ship and create a struc- ture here which is subject to many of these things. And then we have catastrophes like the Torrey Uanyon. I am not sure that applies in this case, but I am saying that these are the problems that are being created by this jumbolizing. We get ships that are so large that the sag in them, and that sort of thing, does create a hazard. But this Ocean Eagle down in San Juan Harbor-now, we have got a lot of things that we need to study in the way of research as to how to handle these things when the acci- dents do happen; that is a problem. But, you see, some of these tankers that have cracked up back over the years, and in many cases were too close to the coastline aimd too close to the reefs and that sort. of thing. There is only one way to correct these things; that is to put some teeth in these laws, and require these people to look at the other side of it and prepare for some of these things. Now, this excuse that you cannot control this because of rivet holds and that sort of thing, all I have got to say is that if we are going to continue to permit the contamination of our environment, both in the air and on the land and in the waters of this country, with the tremen- PAGENO="0537" 529 dously burgeoning human populations, something has got to be done. That is all there is to it, whether we like it or not, whether it is going to cost a little more to build better ships and change the construction of the ships, and so forth, to provide better protection and security, these things are goipg to have to be done, because the population de- mands and the people demands of this country are going to make this necessary. Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in 1954, at the old State Department auditorium, where maritime matters were being discussed, oil spillage was brought up, the identical arguments that you have just indicated to us were brought up at that time. That is 14 years ago. One would hope that within that 14 years there would be some com- pelling factor to try and remove some of these things that are causing the pollution. I know the Senate bill has some teeth in it, and it seems to be rather strict; but at what point do you start, if you are going to get thatement of any of these kinds of problems? I think Mr. Gutermuth is absolutely right. Some of these problems did not disappear. Certain kinds of research were not undertaken until enforcement was either on them or imminent. And at that point, ef- forts were made. Mr. MCCARTHY. We certainly appreciate your testimony, gentlemen. You have given us ample testimony to peruse, and we appreciate your dedication to this cause. I hope that this bill is going to be a major step forward in the work that you have been working on for so many years; I think the country really owes you a great deal of gratitude. Dr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Mr. MCCARTHY. The next witness is Mr. John E. Kinney, consult- ing engineer, of Ann Arbor, Mich. You have appeared before our committee before, and I am happy to have you back, Mr. Kinney. STATEMENT OP JOHN E. KINNEY, SANITARY ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, ANN ARBOR, MICH. Mr. KINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement that I would like to submit to the record, if I might, and just take a few of the points that are in it and discuss them in more detail. (Prepared statement of John E. Kinney follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN E. KINNEY Mr. Ohatirman, members of the Public Works Committee, my name is John E. Kinney and I am a ~anitary engineering consultant from Ann Arbor, Michigan. My voc~atton is the technical accomplishment of acceptable water quality and this represents 30 years of ac~demic and practical experience. My avocation is the abatement of the political pollution which so often clouds the issues and p~rograms directed towards clean streams. Thus, I wish to express a double pleasure over the enlightened and under- standing attitudes and questions propounded by this committee in this hearing. Very frankly, I owe you an apology. After the Senate hearing in March, I sadly concluded this House Committee had won the battles of 1964, 1965 and 1966, but bud lost the war this year, for Senate members were agreeing with the PAGENO="0538" 530 Secretary that our national policy included assertions which has been d'elib- erately deleted by this committee and by the Congress. I am sorry my faith was so shallow. Your questions and your comments while the Secretary was testifying left no doubt you knew what you were doing in passing the 1965 and 1966 enactments. Even more, there was no doubt you not only kaow what is required for accomplishment but you are also close enough to the p'~ople to understand and reflect their needs. As one who is intimately tnvolved with not only the technical p~oblems of what can or can not be done, but also the administrative problems involved with the policy issues, I would like to briefly summarize the situation `as I see it in both areas and comment on what is proposed in legislation and on how I believe your leadership can be of further assistance. SITUATIONS AND CONDITIONS It is axiomatic that an organization, foundation or bureaucracy can continue indefinitely as long as its pronouncenients are limited to "Conditions and Situa- tions" or to "Situations and Conditions" and devoid of debating specific details. If the leader can `direct attention to an adequate number of crises, and if he can promise to resolve the crises, growth is insured. Just how `the job is to be done is a detail `to `be worked out later. Of course, it is difficult to remain on an `absolutely generalized `basis so one other element is essential to continuing success. The secret to success is vacillation, not perserver- ance. With a properly moving target and changing ground rules, chances for `the ~pposi'tion `to develop controls are drastically lessened. This committee saw this picture in detail during the testimony by the `Secretary on Tuesday. He talked "Conditions and Situations" and answered questions on specifics with "Situations and Conditions". The queries on `the necessity for new legislation were answered with promises of accomplishment if the requested authority is granted. Questions on `the possibilities for control of oil, for example, were answered with descriptions of the crises of the Torrey Canyon and the Ocean Eagle. And the dialogue on standards left no doubt the states are faced with a shifting target and changing ground rules. This committee undoubtedly recalls the battles in 1964, 1965 and 1966 in which the past experience and knowledge of its members prevailed and the Congress passed good legislation. These acts recognized that: `Since pollution is `a people's problem it requires personal involvement and acceptance of responsibility by all; `Since it is a highly complicated problem requiring technical expertise it requires competency in leadership and research; Since it is a costly problem evolved over many decades and since it is in competition with other equally costly and equally necessary problems. it will take `an orderly succession of steps and hopefully at least cost in `achieving control; and `Since decisions on water control our economy and grow'th, the people involved must participate in the decisionmaking. However, there was the possibility that when the states *held hearings and set standards, the st'a'tes would not do an adequate job so the enactment provided that such standards should be reviewed by the Secretary to make sure that they were responsive to the purposes of the act. If `my memory serves me `correctly, `the proposition that the `Secretary could dictate standards was expressly rejected. So were the concepts of federal standards `and treatment for treatment's sake under the guise of making water as clean as possible. `So the `Secretary's review was primarily an insurance factor in case the state did not accept its responsi- bility. If it did not, `then the door was open to permit the Secretary to hold con- ferences and set standards. But the faith of this committee in their people and in the demands of the people to achieve effective water quality control was not misplaced. The states have accepted their responsibility and have done a credible job. There may be arguments about some of the standards adopted but if they are inadequate, this will be demonstrated in short order once the program is underway. However, in order to center the authority in one individual, the Congress has detailed a number of jobs specifically to the Secretary of Interior. But of even more importance, the Congress has given the Secretary discretionary authority in several instances. Even though the Congress has included guidelines for PAGENO="0539" 531 the exercise of that judgment, it unfortunately would seem as though a court action will be required to determine whether that discretionary authority is being properly accepted unless this committee speaks out. This committee has heard testimony about how serious many people are viewing the Secretary's policies. Legal opinions by reputable lawyers bluntly state he is out of order. The Secretary reported to this committee he does not agree with this legal interpretation. So unless this committee calls the shot and clarifies the situation, a legal hassle is in the making-and that hassle could stop the whole program. That hassle can be in one of two ways: The states which agree to the Secretary's demands may have to go to court to enforce the standards and there determine whether they have adopted unenforceable standards; The secretary may withhold program grant monies from states which have not acceded to the Secretary's demands on the grounds the state must have an acceptable program-which the Secretary considers as including standards he approved-before the state can qualify. Since `the state staffs are now financed in large part (1/4 to 1/2) by federal grants, this curtailment cripple a state program. Incidentally, neither of these is remote. Some states have informally been told that unless their standards are acceptable by July 1, the program grant monies will be withheld. Thus, I suggest this committee with its understanding of what is needed to keep the program going-the program which this committee devised-could: 1. Provide that the administrator of the program be a person who has demonstrated a competency in this field and delegate the policy making authority to him under guidelines promulgated by the Congress; 2. Provide that there be an advisory committee of state administrators- the men who have to do the job-who would provide policy recommendations and proposals for joint federal-state research and administration demon- stration projects to the administrator and to the Congress. We are fortunate now in having a competent administrator. Joe Moore knows his business and demonstrated by his work in Texas that he knows `the problems and approaches for their solution. However, as was brought out in the Tuesday questioning by the committee, the policies were established before he assumed office. Since the important issue is accomplishment of water quality control, not pride of authorship of policy, the responsibility given to the administrator to achieve quality control should include responsibility for policies. Making him work under policies which preceded his arrival is asking a lot. Also, since the central problem is obviously one of attaining effective federal- state working relationships, Mr. Moore should have the assistance of people who are by experience knowledgeable of state problems. Replacement of the planners whose competency is theory with advisors whose competency is experi- ence would mean a reorientation of the federal hierarchy which would result in accomplishment. This could and should be done by the Secretary and this committee could encourage such action. "ANTIDEGRADATION" The committee has heard much about the antidegradation policy statement proposed by the Secretary and adopted by some five states at his insistence. Suffice it to say that the title proposes a benefit while the fine print contains an insidious mechanism to reduce the states to branch offices of the Secretary. An intra-agency memorandum in FWPCA outlined how such a statement could be interpreted and implemented. High quality water would not be limited to beadwaters or pristine lakes but rather would apply to all waters in which any single quality parameter was acceptable. Also, the FWPCA in Washington would make final determination as to whether a discharge would be permitted and would condition approval on whether the latest technology is employed and whether the `social and economic development warrants it. Actually, all states now have as routine practice a true antidegradation policy. Once uses are defined and standards of quality to protect those uses are promulgated, the installation of developments which would reduce that stipulated quality is banned. It takes a formal hearing to determine whether there should be a change in uses permitted. PAGENO="0540" 532 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Congressman Jones made a most important point on Tuesday when he asked whether the solid waste disposal problem is being integrated into the water quality program. He correctly noted that solid waste is the growing problem and unless our regulations on water quality properly assess this aspect we can be creating an even greater problem in the near future. Governor Rockefeller gave his endorsement to this. Some specific solid waste problems demand immediate attention from this committee because the public clamor has effectively curtailed factual develop- ment of answers. The first is `the increa'sing sewage sludge disposal and the second is the disposal of dredged material from harbors. A third problem is the disposal of residue from cities and industries and this include trash, garbage and solids such as fly ash. The public has become so conditioned to demands that no materials of any kind be permitted to discharge to our waterways `that it has endorsed crusades by newspapers that no dredged material or sewage sludges be permitted to `be dumped in either lakes or oceans. The solution in their opinion is simple-use land `disposal or diked area disposal. However, Mr. Jones is correct. This solution is simple now but its effects are irrevocable so that the issue should `be appraised fully. Filling `in `the marsh lands can have a greater effect on the ecology of the lake than dumping the `material into the lake. The marshes are natural sponge balanc- ing entities and `provide habitait for aquatic life. Also, when material is piled on shore or close to `shote in diked areas, the rain causes a continuous leeching of the `salts `to `the lake. If theSe `salts are nutrients, the `algal growths in the shallow :shore waiter's can be tremendous. The increased cost of `disposing of dredged material can thus be followed by a `further in'cret'se in costs in later' years. However, if `the `site in the lake is selected properly `and `the `dredg~ed m'a~ terial is cohesive, bottom `dumping can result in compacted material `which `does not `become `available fo'r effedt on the lake quality. Such a program was being fully evaluated in Lake Erie and Michigan when the Corps of Engineers, at FWPOA insistence, cut it off. This study should be completed befo~e thi's com- mittee has to determine which ports cannot be maintained because of cost of dredging and unavailahul'ity of disposal `sites. IrE. 1~O07-5. 3206 Phi's `bill ,has three major parts: new financing, estuarial `studies, an,d `research. The last-~resea'rch, investigation, training an'd inforrnaition-4's a revision of' the present law on this subject. Essentially, it,would give the Secretary more discretionary authority on what should be thsearched. This `appropriation of $125,000,000 is more than half the scheduled construction grant authorization, and `would be a `continuing deal so `as to remove the review by this committee' of the results of the authorization. Oue of the very real disappointments under the federal law been the dearth'~ of fruit from `the research `and demonstration monies. The committee could well inquire for: 1. A l'ist of the research projects n'ow funded with the detail of wh'en the project was approved, when the first monies `w'ere paid the recipient, how' much `has been paid in `to'to, what the completion date was (or is) and what reports have been received on `the findings as well as the dissemination of the findings. 2. How many applications FWPOA has n'ow, how many are `similar or related to the same objective, `how long the application has been in hand,~ how many `have been reported to the applicant as worthy, and how many' have been promised as aipprovab'le once monies are appropriated. 3. A listing of the `stipulations `and requirements by FWPOA to the reci'p' icent of a contract `before `and after the contract i's :a~proved. 4. A listing o'f the field applications and th'e benefits' of such application of findings financed from this program. The research section as rewritten in this bill also suggests a conflict with the Executive Directive which, in response to `the Bureau of the Budget demands,. would cbt down on duplication `of collecting water quality data. This bill (Sec.. 6(a) (4)) would give FWPCA a directive to do what U.S. Geological Survey is, now doing. PAGENO="0541" 5~3 The other proposals for research are already included in the present law. What is needed is not new legislation on research but rather a new policy Oil how research funds should be spent. The "comprehensive estuaries study" is in reality the same as in the present law in Sec. 5(g). All it does is give it a separate section and extend the time in which the study is to be completed from 11/29 to 1/30/70. The financing proposal was well discussed by the committee with witnesses on Tuesday. In my opinion, its effect on the program would be most detrimental. For example, removal of tax exempt bonding would undoubtedly raise interest rate above the 5% or 6% mandatory limits in most states and thus there would be no action. Mr. Oeming did a nice job in pointing out the deficiencies in thin bill. Its purpose was to make it appear as though the federal agcency has pro- vided an alternative to the construction grant funds withheld by the Adminis- tration. This, it has not done. WATERCRAFT DISCHARGES The bills, HR. 16207, H.R. 13923, deal with pollutional discharges from ves- sels within the navigable waters of the United States. In addition the small boatowners proposed a bill (Exhibit E on their presenta- tion) for such boats. There is no doubt that human waste discharges from ships and small boats do have a deleterious effect in harbors and marinas. Their effect out in large open water is problematical except where plastic containers are discarded. The boat owners were most vocal a few years ago for law to shut down indus- tries unless they cleaned up immediately. In Chicago at the Lake Michigan con- ference when they pleaded for reasonable requirements and time for compliance, they heard the conferees use the argument the boat owner should not operate his vessel unless he could comply. But here is where the difficulty lies. Mayor Daley made a big political splash a year ago by announcing that Chicago was going to adopt an ordinance enforce- able for the 1968 season which would ban all boats without holding tanks. This was to be applied to all ships and small boats. Rather than publicly admit that such a regulation is impractical the conferees endorsed the idea and proposed that the Great Lakes states all adopt similar legislation. Because that takes time, Chicago has postponed enforcement. The ordinance is advertised as a fail safe. No treatment device is permitted- only a holding tank. For small boats or sailboats this can be an absurdity. At .5 gal/person/day, the space is not available. Also, there is a conflict with the state water standards-even those approved by the Secretary. The standards set a quality in the water, not a prohibition against a discharge. This must be rememebered in granting any authority to the Secretary to set specifications for boats. Also, there is the practical problem of space on the large ships. The S.S. Amer- ica has 200 outlets and no space in the ship other than a room-10x10~----for a treatment unit. The discharges are not connected up. How a dock facility could connect up to such a ship is a question. Before a law is passed providing for regulations, the committee could well require the Secretary to submit a report on the problem and its potential solutions. Incidentally, one of the Canadian provinces which adopted such legislation has now announced a delay in enforcement while some practical answers are developed. H.R. 16044 This bill proposes a federal subsidy to aid cities in the operation of sewage treatment plants "using proven new methods to achieve a substantial immediate improvement of effluent quality, including phosphate removal." Since Congress is having difficulty in financing its past commitment towards construction of treatment plants, I see no merit in assuming the cost of opera- tion of plants or the cost of administering such a program. However, the concept behind the bill is exceedingly important. Mr. Oeming, in his statement, made reference to the fantastic improvement achieved in two Michigan primary sewage treatment plants by a proper addition of chemicals- a reduction in solids, oxygen consuming material and phosphates. To achieve this same result via the route which the Secretary would make mandatory-that is, by the latest available technology as proposed by the PAGENO="0542" 534 FWPCA in the Lake Michigan hearing in February-would require that the city construct a biological secondary treatment plant and thereby double its operating cost and then in addition construct a chemical tertiary plant which would cost the city an additional $50-$60 a million gallons. The State of Michigan and Dow Chemical Company cooperated in a study which included a full plant-sized operation and show-ed that primary plant could achieve the same results-at less cost and without waiting for some future construction grant which would delay the clean up. Actually, instead of paying the city 25% of the cost of the chemicals, this committee should use the money in demonstration grants elsewhere to show the applicability of this economic breakthrough. S. 2760 This bill has three sections, all of which warrant attention. Acid mine drainage control, as well as control of other mine water pollution from either active or abandoned mines, is the first item. This proposal assumes first that there is presently no authority to approach these problems and secondly that their importance warrants an additional $15 million is required to resolve it. Actually, the present lawT covers the situation but the federal agency has not demonstrated either knowledge or desire to work on it. This bill then would act as an excuse for the lack of action to date and make available a monetary re- ward for such inactivity. Congressman Robert Jones made history a few years ago when, as Chairman of the Government Operations Natural Resources Subcommittee, he succeeded in getting from Interior the first comprehensive report on what constitutes the mine drainage problem and a program which could give us some answers. That proposal has been largely ignored. Arguing that abandoned mines is outside the present law is fatuous. The causes of mine drainage are the same for active and abandoned mines. The FWPCA has already made a large research grant to Pennsylvania for the study of mine drainage control. We can either emphasize the treatment approach which at present is limited to adding lime and increasing the dissolved solids in our streams, and at a cost which will be perpetual, or we can determine better mining practice based on a better knowledge of geology, hydrology and mining. There is another alternative-a combination of surface mining, land reclama- tion and altered flow patterns in abandoned mines. This type research can be effective and permit the federal-state-industry participation which this com- mittee has encouraged. This can be done under present law. La1~e entrophication is the objective of the addition to Sec. 5. Once again, this is already included in the present law but once again, action has been nil so the lapse is to be covered by new legislation-H.R. 10751 is also concerned with this issue. Oil Pollution is the third subject of this bill. As passed by the Senate this bill would make oil in a discharge from either a boat or a shore installation a federal offense. It does more, if the Senate Committee report (page 22) is a proper interpretation. The definition of oil would cover "discharged waste that includes oil or oily mixtures". That means oil or matter mixed with oil is a federal offense; the other con- taminants would be a state responsibility. Only confusion will result. As has been pointed out by others oil is included in state standards approved by the Secretary. But this bill would also give Congressional approval to an exemption for all federal or state ships and shore installations. To make such an exemption makes a farce out of the proposal we all want clean water. There is a need to better define who has responsibility when vessels lose oil. The issues of jurisdiction within 3 and 12 miles offshore require resolution. There is also a need to better define the controls for ships in handling hazardous cargo. CONCLUSI0T~ In summary I wish to commend this committee on its past battle scars in achieving effective water pollution control. Obviously, there will be other scars before the objective is achieved. But it should be encouraging to know that your actions have improved our streams dramatically since 1948. An eye surgeon friend of mine told me that PAGENO="0543" since people's memories are slìort, he makes the practice of taking pictures of children's eyes before he starts a series of treatments to correct crossed eyes. Otherwise, the mother seldom believes he has made much improvement when the final adjustment is completed. People do not remember how bad things were 20 years .ago. They can't see improvement from last year and so are unhappy. Progress has been great and it should not be permited to be slowed down either by changes in legislation or by vacillating policy, regardless of how well intentioned either may be. This commitee by its pronouncement now can assure continued progress. The committee's past reports offered guidance to the federal agency which was ignored. The House Appropriations Committee report (July 1967) was blunt in its criticism of the manner in which the Secretary has directed the program. This can now be corrected by this committee for it understands the situation. The Senate Committee does not. The incentive for action by this committee was well stated in the Appropriations Committee report: "As the power to control water quality and quantity is not only the power to make or break business and agriculture but is a power over the life of the Nation itself, it is essential that the FWPCA not only closely coordinate its plans and activities with all the Federal agencies involved, but also with each of the states, local jurisdictions, and private interests affected by the program. The imposi- tion of restrictions and controls without full and equitable consideration of the essential and varied interests involved in water supply, including priority of use and riparian rights, could have a most serious adverse effect on the various segments of the economy dependent upon water for their existence. The Com- mittee wishes to emphasize the importance, therefore, of the new Administration undertaking its most difficult and essential program of water pollution control with a sense of balance and caution to assure any disruptive or adverse effects on the economy are minimized." Mr. KINNEY. I would first express my apologies to the committee for my lack of faith. After listening to the Senate hearings in March, I sort of assumed that perhaps, after winning the battles of 1964, 1965, and 1966, the House had now lost the. battle because of opinions that I was hearing on the Senate side. But `after these last 3 days, well, I find that my faith was shallow. Your understanding of what you are doing and why you are doing it is still there. So we still have a real hope for the effective water pollution control. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The first point that I would emphasize is the comments from the discussion you have heard 011 this so-called antidegradation clause. Now, in fact, all States have a true antidegradation clause. I do not know of any State that will not stop `projects where t'he residual dis- charge, even after treatment, would cause an effect against `the use of the stream. The use for waste discharge is not `permitted. But the coin- ment that was made that `the purpose of this clause is to provide water on the safe side rather than as dirty as `possible, and I think this state- m'ent `has been made too often and without any real background. What it `has done has tended to give the idea that the States are trying to promote as much waste into the streams as they can, and for those who have been associated with the administration of these programs within the governmental agencies, as I have, you know that you cannot take a chance on a deal like that. You are promoting something that would be on the safe side to start with. It has tended to confuse the issues. You had a copy of a. `brief tha't was submitted to you prepared by Covington and Burling on this issue, and I would like to add to the PAGENO="0544" 53~6 record, and for your information, a copy of a suimnary that has been prepared by a committee of State Attorneys General for the Inter- state Conference on Water Prdblems on the Role of the States, from the States' side of this issue. Very frankly, gentlemen, the issue that we are getting into is the possibility that somewhere along the way someone is going to contest some of these proceedings in court. And unless the program is estab- lished on a firm basis, a court case can bring our whole program to a complete stop, and that is something that none of us want. So the issues are such that the States have raised them. This pro- gram was done under the guidance of this Interstate Conference on Water Problems by a committee that prepared it for their use, for their review. I have been one of those who `have been asked to review it. This is why I have a copy of it. I would like to make it available at this time, even though it is not a document that has yet been adopted by the Conference, but it will at least give you some background for discussion and consideration. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without thjection, so ordered; to appear in the record art this point. (Summary referred to follows:) (To be considered for adoption by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems) THE ROLE OF THE STATES IN REGARD TO THE SETTING OF WATER QUALrrY STANDARDS UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT This memorandum is directed to a discussion of the role of the states in setting of water quality standards and the state's interrelation with the: Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior. It is designed primarily to be a guide to state agencies in evaluating their approach to this task and to hopefully stimulate appropriate state agencies in reassessing their position and policies vis a vis the federal government. It is becoming increasingly apparent that many states, through their respective water pollution control agencies, are becoming alarmed over certain activities of the federal government in regard to water quality standards, plans of imple- mentation and the approval thereof by the Secretary of the Interior. Looking at the federal act as it is presently written, testimony at various con- gressional hearings and the rejection by the Congress of various proposed amend- ments, several legal and historical facts become apparent, to wit: (1) The concept of nationally uniform, federally proposed and adopted water quality standards is clearly prohibited. (2) The states have pre-eminence and primary authority in the field of water pollution abatement and control. Most states have, pursuant to the federal act as amended in October 1965, adopted water quality standards and plans of implementation and forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Interior. This was reQuired to have been done by June 30, 1967. Federal guidelines were issued May 9, 1966 to the states to aid them in establishing these standards. These were reissued in January 1967. How- ever, since the promulgation of standards by the states thereof and their sub- mission to the Secretary, the federal administrators: have come up with two new policies heretofore not made known to the states. These are the so-called "non- degradation" standard and the one requiring secondary treatment or its equiva- lent. The federal legal aspects of these two items are treated in the attached addendum and will not be discussed herein except to say that the Secretary of Interior is without authority to establish either of them. The question then remains as to what should be the approach of the several states to the Secretary's insistence that these two items be included in their standards and plans of implementation, coupled with his refusal to approve state standards that lack them. At the outset, it should be pointed out that any standards adopted by the sev- eral states are valid, legal and enforceable standards without the Secretary's PAGENO="0545" 537 approval and therefore the states should not relax or cut back their abatement programs while awaiting federal approval. Two legal questions immediately arise concerning these two items independent of the Secretary's lack of authority to propose them. One is whether or not such proposals can be legally adopted by the states and, secondly, can they be adopted by the states without additional hearings. As to the first proposition, it must be divided into two sub-topics: (1) are the standards consistent with state water pollution control acts and (2) can any state water pollution control administration legally delegate a portion of its authority and discretion to an agency of the federal government in the absence of specific state legislative authority. With respect to sub-topic (1), the so-called "nondegradation" policy reads that: "Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of your State will not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would constitute a new source o'f pollu- tion or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology, and, since these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively." This statement contains two important factors namely the requirement that the Department of Interior give prior approval to any installation and that any new sources of pollution be given `the highest and best degree of waste treat- ment available under existing technology." The appropriate statutes of each state would have to be examined to deter- mine whether or not such a proposed standard or regulation would be contrary thereto. Most states operate on either a permit system or a stream quality system basis. Examples of the effect of such proposed standard on each of these types of systems are set out hereinbelow. The State of West Virginia operates on a permit system; that is, no one may discharge pollutants into the waters of the State until a permit therefor has been issued. Chaper 20, Article 5A, Section 7, Subsection (c), of West Virginia Code provides that: "The department's permit shall be issued upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the chief may direct if (1) the certificate or permit of the depart- ment of health was issued (in those cases where the director of the division of sanitary engineering was required to act as aforesaid) and/or (2) the applica- tion, together with all supporting information and data and other evidence, establishes that any and all discharges or deposits of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes or the effluent therefrom resulting from such proposed activity will be treated and/or the quality and rate of flow thereof regulated or controlled to the fullest extent reasonably, economically and practicaly feasible in view of modern technology and scientific methods for the treatment, regulation or control of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes or the effluent therefrom." Thus a permit shall be issued when the above-stated requirements are fulfilled. An attempt by West Virginia to adopt the regulation as suggested by the federal agency would add additional requirements to the organic laws of West Virginia and thus be invalid. The regulation would require prior federal approval of any new source and also highest and best treatment without regard to economic and practical feasibility. It is well settled in West Virginia and elsewhere that an administrative agency may not by regulation subvert or enlarge upon the statu- tory policy established by the Legislature. The State of Colorado operates on a stream quality standard basis; that is, that no discharge is permitted which causes the quality of the water in the stream to fall below a certain standard established with respect to present and future uses. Consequently an attempt by the control authorities to establish such standards and requirements which are not related to the maintenance and attain- ment of stream quality standards would be contrary to the statute. 94-376-08-------35 PAGENO="0546" 538 As to the suggested federal guideline that states require secondary or its equivalent treatment across the board within the next five years, this is clearly an effluent standard. Under most state statutes, the quality of an effluent must be tailored so that upon mixing with the waters of the receiving stream, the desired standard of quality is achieved. Effluent standards must, therefore, be designed to result in that desired quality in the receiving waters. As stated by Burton J. Gindler, B.S.L., LL.B., in Volume 3 of Waters and Water Rights, 1967: "There may be a tendency to establish effluent standards which provide a mar- gin of safety. The effluent standards may often not be based on the fair assimi- lative capacity of the receiving waters; they may require a greater expense for waste treatment than is actually necessary." Under what legal theory could a state administrator tell a municipality or indus- try that they must construct and install secondary or its equivalent treatment when they can clearly demonstrate that they are able to meet the pertinent water quality standards by using a lesser degree of treatment? Any state which adopts this requirement is probably buying itself a lot of litigation in which it cannot prevail. Consequently, across-the-board uniform effluent requirements, such as secondary treatment or its equivalent, is beyond the power of the Secre- tary to require and beyond the legal capacity of most states to require or enforce. Certainly the Secretary couldn't enforce it and knowing this he wants the states to do it for him, or at least attempt to do so. With respect to sub-topic (2), it is axiomatic that the delegation of certain powers and discretion by a state agency to a federal agency is legally and consti- tutionally prohil ted unless it is specifically authorized to do so by state legislation and even in some instances such legislative authority is highly questionable. In regard to the question of the need for additional state hearings, if a state should attempt to adopt the Secretary's suggestion, it is clear, in most states at least, that such a hearing would be required. This is true for the reason that the impact of such an amendment is so broad as to affect the entire scope of standards theretofore adopted and thus constitutes a substantial deviation therefrom. The w-hole purpose of a public hearing is to advise all segments of the public as to what it is the administrative agency proposes to do and give them an oppor- tunity to offer suggestions, criticisms and alternatives. It also allows them to go on record as objecting to a certain regulation to protect themselves for the record should they later determine to have it tested judicially. To attempt to promulgate such a rule without a hearing would by-pass and ignore all of these well estab- lished legal concepts. It is suggested that the state attorneys general should take a more active part in water pollution control activities and keep in constant touch with their water pollution control agencies and particularly request that such agencies invite them to any conferences or consultations with representatives of the Department of the Interior. This is not to imply that such federal representatives bear w-atching but rather that some state administrators out of a lack of understanding of legal restrictions may in good faith agree to do certain things beyond their authority. Considering the recent activities of the federal government in this matter. it would appear that the Department of the Interior is attempting by indirection to do what the COngress has precluded them from doing directly; that is, to formulate broad and nationally uniform water quality standards and to inject themselves directly into state water pollution control adminisration. In seeking these goals, the federal representatives have attempted to pit one state against another and to play upon the fears of the states that federal grants w-ill be withheld unless the states comply with their wishes. This unhealthy climate results in a serious detriment to a state's economic development in that a water user who wishes to locate in a particular state cannot project his operating costs accurately until he knows what level of treat- ment will be required of him. If he relies on existing state standards, he may find to his horror that a later federally adopted rule might require him to sub- stantially add to his treatment fa~ility at a cost far beyond that which he could have constructed such a facility originally. Such a situation is unfair to w-ater users and to the states. All state regulatory bodies should take a long hard look at these federal pio- posals and seek `the advice of their legal counsel. If it is determined that their adoption is legally unsound, then they should so advise the Secretary of the Interior and stand thdir ground. PAGENO="0547" 539 The thoughts presented in this paper hopefully will serve to stimulate state officials to take a fresh and strong approach in their relationships with the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Administration and to encourage a review of the legal aspects of any standards, agreements and programs which `have `been ac- cepted by the Secretary or proposed for his consideration. The Congress and the state legislatures have entrusted the primary responsibility for an effective pollu- tion control program to the state agencies and nothing should be permitted to disrupt or deter it. The states will be required to enforce and administer the standards, not the federal government. The states are in the front ranks in the battle for clean water. They are the ones who must tell local industries, inunici- palities and citizens t'hey must comply with these standards. So they must be certain they can enforce their pollution control programs. Mr. KINNEY. Also, and along this same line, if I understood Mr. Penfold correctly, his statement was that the Federal agency has no authority over thermal pollution. I would suggest that somebody 1S missing a cue somewhere, because the thermal control units are prob- ably the most discussed individual limits of any among the States and the Federal Government. In other words, the authority is there, or they otherwise could not be contesting it. Also, I find nothing in the law that excludes or limits any particu- lar injurious effect. They are all included. Insofar as I can see, if I understood Mr. Penfold correctly, somebody has been giving him a song and dance. But it does bring to the point the desirability of hav- ing a better understanding of the policies `that we are trying to achieve, and in terms of people who can get the work done. It has been re- peatedly expressed that the job belongs to the States; they should be doing it under the guidance of the Secretary. But when the guidelines are established by people whose experience is theory rather than actual practice in the field, sometimes it is a little difficult to follow. One of my suggestions to this committee would be the adoption of an advisory committee to the Secretary and the Administrator that would be composed of State administrators. Let them meet directly with them, talk out their problems directly, and make formal recoin- mendations of what they should be doing. It would also be a good advisory group to this committee. Very frankly, as far as I am concerned, the real hope for water control in the future lies with this committee, on this side rather than the other. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The second point I would like to mention is solid waste disposal. Mr. Jones made the point on Tuesday, and it was well taken. I am not so pessimistic that I do not think water pollution and air pollution are going to be handled-I am quite pessimistic that, at the rate we are going now, we are not going to have a real solution in terms of solid waste disposal unless we begin to think it out at this stage. Our whole effort in water pollution is to take the solids out. Our whole effort in air pollution is to take the solids out. What we have done is dig a hole and move it. We have now got tile solids to take care of. ~Tou are in this hassle in the city of Washington, tile proposal of taking over tile marshlands in the low level down the Potomac. Even PAGENO="0548" 540 if you take over the marshlands, after a period of years, what do we have? We have trash, rubbish; we have sewage solids. One of our most expensive jobs is removing the solids that are taken from the sewage treatment plants. We have also another problem that has been bandied about, and it needs your guidance. That is the handling of dredged materials from harbors. Now, under the Federal law, the Corps of Engineers is supposed to have jurisdiction over the handling and disposal of such dredged ma- terial. A year ago a program was set up between the Corps of Engi- neers and the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency to make some studies on the handling and the disposal of dredged material and the like; also to study alternate possibilities. In the course of this they were to determine the actual effects of what went into the lake. They were to determine also the effects of what happens when there is onshore disposal. A crusade of the Chicago newspapers put the whole thing into an emotional climate, that anything going into Lake Michigan would destroy the lake, and Lake Erie was aiiready a vast swampland. They wanted no part of seeing Lake Midhigan look the same as Lake Erie. No dying Lake Michigan. The demand was made for eliminating any disposal of dredge materials into Lake Michigan so as to save the lake. With the publicity and the newspaper crusade, and with the public con- cern-and very frankly, if I was as scared as those people, I would be demanding the same thing-4hey shut off the disposal of material into the lake right while this study was underway. Now, the Congress has appropriated $1 million for a study. They extended it with another $6 million, and they are back for another seven this year, to continue it. Bu't unless we find out actually what is occurring with the material going into the lake, our answer is going to be totally in terms of onshore disposal. That has two limitations. The first is that for Indiana alone the available space to put dredged material permits 1 year of dredging. Beyond that year, there is no space. The second is that when they use the marshlands `along the shore for fill with `this dredged material, they `are destroying two things. They are destroying duck habitats, for one; and second, they are destroying the sponge that acts `as an equalizing base along the shore. They will do more to change the ecology of the lake by such a maneuver `than by dumping a good deal of material in the lake. Before we destroy the marsh for `all time, we should know what the irrevocable effect will be. There is `also the related effect that when this material is piled on shore `or piled in (a diked area, unless we can come up with some better control than we have had in the past, there is n constant leeching of `the material. The salts that ~vre in the material including the nutrients, go into the water. When you drain the leeched nutrient `into the water (and in `a shallow area, our potential for `algae growth is greater than if this material were carried out in the lake nud dumped to the bottom where `it can be covered with sand. All dredge material is not the same. For that which would tend to he cohesive (and would tend to `hold `together, so that it could drop to PAGENO="0549" 541 the bottom, and in areas that would be selected so it would be covered, this material could be sealed off for all time, in what they call a sink in the lake. There is a good deal involved m how this material is transported, where the sites should be. These kinds of considerations should be fully evaluated, rather than merely jump on a bandwagon. To save a lake we argue we cairnot do one thing, only to find out, as Mr. J~ones ponited out, that we have got a worse problem than we started with. I strongly urge that this committee gives its consideration to this kind of an approach. . One of the real ironies in this, incidentally, and it is one of the things that galls me, is that this crusade in Chicago was carried on by a news- paper, the Tribune, that owns a paperplant in Canada, the Ontario Paper Co., whose waste is discharged, untreated, under the Welling- ton Canal, over into the old canal, down through the park of St. Cather- ine, and out to Lake Ontario, and with no treatment. It is supposed to have treatment by 1970. They will be lucky if they get it by 1973 or 1974. This is the paper that would mould American congressional opinion, while destroying Canadian waters. This double standard gives me a pain in the neck; but it is remarkable. You know, sometimes you begin to wonder whether or not the cru- sading spirit is promoted by altruistic motives. RESEARCH The next area that I would like to mention is that of research. Under H.IR. 15907 and S. 3206, three points are covered, three areas. The first is research. The gentlemen that were just here were pro- moting more research. I am all for research, but, very frankly, unless we can begin to orient our research, we are more interested in spend- ing money on projects than accomplishing anything. Mr. Jones will recall that in the course of his hearings around the country, he attempted to determine who was using the results of this sponsored research and had no luck. And the condition is still pretty much the same today. The proposal in the bill would essentially give the Secretary great- er discretion. One of the biggest difficulties we are having today, and I am talking now from the practical viewpoint of dealing with people who have made application for grants, is the number of times that they have to redo their grant applications, the resubmissions-one company I know of claims today they have spent over $40,000 in trying to get a Federal grant to work on a research program, simply because of the number of trips to Washington, the number of revampings, the num- ber of redoings, and this does more to discourage an attitude and leaves an impression that people are not interested. This committee opened the research program to tie industrial waste treatment in as a part of the pi~ture, and this was most important. Without the industrial picture, you have lost the show. But unless the money is in a form that is available to be used, we are in a little difficulty, and right now we are in an administrative diffi- culty that is a dilly. It is one that I would suggest this committee could PAGENO="0550" 542 give consideration to in terms of asking for the kind of grants that it requested. How many of them have been approved? I know of one in East Chicago, md., that after some 13 months, and only after a contact to Congressman Daddario when his committee was holding hearings, they got their first $10,000. The grant had been approved. But all their money had been spent, and they had run out of credit. Now you come up with: How do you get the other side of it? There is too much involved. And when you figure the grant program for research, it adds up to $125 million, which is over half of what you are proposing for construction grants, and this suggests that we should either be getting some results or putting that money directly into construction for the cities. At least we would know what we were doing on `th'at score. ESTUARY STUDY The proposed study on estuaries actually does nothing more than what this committee has already set up. T'his would just change a d'a'te from November to January, in terms of a report. DEBT FINANCING The financing considerations have been well developed by other witnesses before the committee, and I will not go into them. I endorse completely the concerns that Mr. Oeming had. T'he suggestion that this new Federal financing would be a panacea just will not work. For those that are involved with bonding, you find that bonding houses want the simply way. But the biggest objection would be on the basis of changing the tax-exempt picture of the bond; the interest rate would he above the level that `the States could even issue a `bond, or the cities; so our program stops. Very frankly, I do not think it was very well thought out. VESSEL POLLUTION CONTROL If I might, I would like to comment a little on this picture of water- craft, on 16207 and 13923, as well as the proposed ordinance `tha't the small-boat owners suggested. There is no doubt about it, that the dis- charge from boats, large and smafi, is an important consideration, particularly in harbors `and marines. Their effeect out in the deep wa- ters, in the ocean, is problematical. But we have some practical dif- ficulties, `and those practical difficulties have been mentioned by wit- nesses here today. The variety of ships, the type of ships-again the Government Operations Subcommittee, when Mr. Jones was carrying forth with that, jarred the whole shipping industry into trying `to come up wi'th some kind of regulations. And it came as a jolt to the troops when they got together to find out that ships like the SS America has over 200 oiftlets, but no means to connect up all the discharges. It is not going `to be simple on some of these larger ships. And `how you coiineot up `at a port for some of these larger ships, I do not know. The small boats and the lake boats and the lake carriers offered a good suggestion, the kind of facilities they put into boats `to provide treatment. Bu't we get into the political realm every so often, and the PAGENO="0551" 543 mayor of Chicago announced a year ago that they had a resolution, or had adopted an ordinance that would be enforcible this season, and that was that you had to have holding tanks, on every boat. That sounded good at the time, but what they are proposing is that it is a fail-safe. They will not give approval to any specific treatment device, whether chlorinated or recycling activated sludge type unit. Very frankly, for the size of the tanks that they call for for the small boats, it is impossible. If it were to be enforced, the regatta this year, from Chicago, would have to be canceled because the holding tank is bigger than the boat. Canada came up with something along the same line and this year they have announced a postponement until they can come up with some practical applications. I would offer some suggestions to you. The first is that the law as set, present Federal law, requires a water quality, not effluent standard. In other words, to come up with the requirement by the Secretary that you cannot have any discharge would be in violation of your Federal law. Those witnesses this morning were correct. It is water quality you are trying to achieve. What we do have is some difficulty in trying to maintain these facil- ities and harbors; and to protect thQharbor you are going to come up with control that you would apply out in the lake. The boat just will not work it that way. What should be, I think, is a request to the Sec retary to provide you with a report on the possibilities, along with a report from the Department of Transportation, or have him get it from the Department of Transportation, on the possibilities of redesign of the larger ships; and at times, schedule for conversion of ships, rather than leaving it up to a regulation that would be nebulous and in an area that we know now there are no specifics, and ask them to come forth with something that you could then review as a basis for setting the requirements for the future. And also to recognize that the requirement is to protect the water rather than to force the people to walk around with a satchel. PLANT OPERATION The next area would be the chemical treatment, Mr. Dingell's bill, H.R. 16044. The philosophy behind that bill is excellent. I do not agree with the content that suggests the Federal Government should assume 25 percent of the operating cost. They are having difficulty now honor- ing the requirement for the funds for construction. Simply what it means is that the State of Michigan, rather than wait for the ultimate in technology to be developed, has cooperated with the Dow Chemical Co. to come up with a procedure whereby the addition of two types of chemical coagulant.s, either one of which alone does not work, but the combination of the two of them has converted primary treatment plants over to the equivalent of what you would call a tertiary treat- ment plaiit. The possibility of using primary treatment plants and converting them by such chemical conditions deserves attention. If this com- mittee were to suggest that a specific amount of the funds proposed for such research were to go into demonstration projects in different parts of the country, to see whether or not this same approach would PAGENO="0552" 544 be applicable elsewhere, you would have something, then, that could be used, used quickly, and come up and do what you are trying to accomplish. Right now, with the shortage of funds, it is better that every city have a primary plan rather than holding up those, particularly the smaller towns that Mr. Denney was referring to, while we are try- ing to take care of the more advanced requirements of the larger cities. Mr. Edmondson raised the question as to whether or not a city would agree to the requirement in getting Federal funds, that they would agree that the Secretary can review and approve the method of operation, to assure that it will be the ultimate. Gentlemen, one of our biggest problems is that we have too few people in the Federal agency who have ever operated any treatment plant. And to leave it to a theoretician to take a look at a plan and to determine whether or not it is going to be operated properly, the best treatment plant in the world can be messed up by an operator in 20 minutes, and also a good operator can take a poor plant and make it work. So to set up rules and regulations to determine whether it is ef- fective, in my opinion, is a little naive. ACID MINE DRAINAGE CONTROL Acid mine drainage, under 5. 2760. The proposal assumes that the Federal agency now has no authority in the present legislation to handle mine drainage. This is not true. They have. When they were asked by the Pennsylvania delegation for a resumé of what is known as mine drainage treatment, the excuse was offered that the majority of the Pennsylvania problem is on abandoned mines, and they have not been able to discuss that or touch it, because the requirements in the law limits their application to industrial waste. Abandoned mines are not industrial wastes in their book, and therefore they are out- side the purview. In my book, it is good mental gymnastics, but far from the truth. The cause of acid formation in an active mine and abandoned mine is identically the same. If you can control it in one, you can control it in the other. Also, if we are going to approach this on the method of treatment alone, we are going to convert one problem into another. We are going to neutralize acid with lime, and instead of having acid stream, we will have a stream very high in dissolved solids-a white stream- and we have got a perpetual cost. Once you shut it off again, the stream goes acid again. Also costs of treatment with lime will add to cost of coal and price it out of the market. Mr. Jones did the impossible a number of years ago, under Gov- ernment Operations. He got a report out of the Interior Department on mine drainage, that included the views and considerations of the Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Mines. And in my memory it is the first time all three agencies talked on the same subject. They came up with a report that was good, very good. It out- lined a program, where it was, and the potential accomplishment. PAGENO="0553" `545 The Bureau of the Budget got into the act and decided, since pollu- tion control is primarily the job of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the assignment of the jurisdiction be given to that agency, and the result has been that report was kicked around instead of showing some usefulness. Very frankly, from those that are in the Department who have talked to me about it, there has been quite a hassle as to whether or not the agency wanted any part of mine drainage. They brought this program down in West Virginia, and it has been almost impossible to maintain. The original thought was that it was an abandoned mine, only to find out that it was active. They started the study on it, appropriated the money for it, before they found that it was active, and then tried to close the mine down so it could be flooded. There was no hesitancy at that time of getting into abandoned mine problems. Now they argue that the law does not cover it. To carry it one step further, $700,000 has been given on a grant to the State of Pennsylvania on mine drainage control, to be matched by $300,000 from the State of Pennsylvania. Once the grant had been approved, and the first moneys had been funded, the Department said that they could not publish their findings. Everything had to come through FWPCA, and the university refused to go ahead with it. I think that `has been clarified. But this committee might well propose again a specific Federal- State-industry joint financing of a mine operation. We have a creek in Pennsylvania with active mines and abandoned mines, acid mines, shaft mines, deep mines, and some are acid and some are alkaline, out there next to each other. If we could find out why one is acid and one is alkaline, we would be a long way toward control. LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL Lake eutrophication again is the question as to whether or not there is authority in the present law. Secretary Udall last year proposed a program. Nothing has `been done on it since. The proposal was based on the present law. You do have the jurisdiction; but our biggest problem is flow management in the streams or in the lakes, including Lake Erie, and proficient fish management; and until we get that, `simply controlling sewer discharges is not going to be the answer. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL As far as the oil pollution is concerned, my one comment would be that the Senate bill would make an exemption of all Federal shore and ship facilities. They could pollute the rivers under congressional exemption; everybody else would have to clean up. Oil under that definition is any solids or matter mixed with oil. All it would do would mean that the oil in a discharge is a Federal offense, everything else would be a State offense. Who has jurisdiction? Gentlemen, I appreciate the time, and I have probably taken too much. But I offer one thought on the oil, to answer the problem such PAGENO="0554" 546 as in Buffalo, and it is a very real one. The British have required that every port have a street-cleaning device, if you will, a boat such as Baltimore reported here, that can clean up debris and oil in the harbors and maintain them. If every port in the United States did the same thing-we may have rules a~d regulations against throwing paper in the street, but we still have a street sweeper to clean them up-and this has been tried on experiments in Cleveland for the last 2 years. The chamber proposed financing the cost of the unit. The city is going to maintain it and operate it. And it will be their responsibility. The difference in the Cleveland harbor, since they have taken this on, has been dramatic. it is the s'ame kind of approach; because we surely cannot get rid of all storm sewers or gas stations-some day maybe. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Chairman, when I first started to work on the pol- lution abatement programs, in trying to analyze them, trying to study them and to reach some understanding `of the problems that have been involved, Mr. Kinney was one of our first witnesses. And I do not know of anyone who has any i!=a,ster knowledge of the complex subjects, that has dealt with t;hem over the period of years, and contributed so much to the progress, and it has been indeed helpful to us, and it has been reflected in `the public laws that we now have. I am pleased that he can be with us today and give us his valuable observations. Mr. KINNEY. Thank you, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I want to join in what the gentleman from Alabama said. Many `of us do not actually have a working knowledge of a treat- ment pliant's construction, `and are trying to get a better understand- ing of this problem of setting standards. "NO DEGRADATION~~ POLICY I just have one question. I think you were present in the room the other day when I asked `this question of the Secretary, relating to antidegradation standards. I still have the clear impres~i'on in my own mind `that the mam~er in which this present act is going to be admin- istered, and also, obviously, this new one proposed by the bill, the Secretary would have the power to say yes or no, relating to the use of a riverbank location, for instance, of an `industry, as t'o whether or not it has degradation effect. The `standards are not being set from a standpoint of the State making such a decision, so, in effect, we have the Secretary of the Interior determining what can be done within the State `as it relates to industrial development because of the water pollution question. Is that not your understanding of it? Mr. KINNEY. That is correct, `and to support that there~ is an intra- agency memorandum that was developed in terms of a potential of implementing that, and that spelled out in no uncertain terms. PAGENO="0555" 547 Mr. CRAMER. The Secretary is the only one who can say "Yes" to the location of a plant along a stream, if it appears that that plant location could result in degradation of the existing water quality; right? Mr. KINNEY. It spells it out even beyond that. It is not only an in- dustrial plant, it is an irrigation project, and it is the enlargement of a city- Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. KINNEY. This is going to be a little difficult to control. Mr. CRAMER. It was my imderstanding in concept, and I have been through this thing, too, from the very first of the Water Pollution Control Act, that relates to congressional action, and it was my under- standing that clearly what Congress intended was that certain stand- ards should be set within the States, and that hearings would be held; and that `if the evidence indicated that the degradation would not be sufficient to overcome the public interest of the clean water, the mdus- try could be developed. In order to have industrial developments, you have to balance the two, and that the State would have that authority. Mr. KINNEY. That was the purpose. Mr. CRAMER. Un~der the standards established. Now, it appears that this question of degradation, the States have no authority. It appears that all the authority has been taken by the Secretary. Mr. KINNEY. It is a nice title; but the procedures transfer the State agencies into branch offices of the Secretary. To add to that, though, and I offered to the chairman before a copy of a brief that has been prepared by a Subcommittee of Inter- state Conference on Water Problems, States attorneys general, that in their opinion the agreement of such a thing by State administra- tive agencies is unlawful, and that only the State legislature could offer such a delegation of authority, anyhow. It is one more state of confusion. And unless it is resolved by this committee specifically, it could well mean a court hassle. Mr. CRAMER. It means, also, that on a stream where there has not been too much industrial development there will be no progress unless the Secretary says so. Mr. KINNEY. That is correct. But when you read this memorandum or intra-agency memorandum, it goes beyond that. Their proposal is that, so long as any quality parameter of water is good, the water qualifies as a quality water. So that means all the waters of the United States are high-quality water, in one respect or another. Mr. CRAMER. Could you submit a copy of that-do you have an extra copy of that memorandum? Mr. KINNEY. I can get it for you. Mr. CRAMER. I would like to have that as part of the record. FWPOA DRAFT-FEBRUARY 15, 1968 APPLICATION OF THE WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION POLICY 1. The Policy The Secretary of the Interior has indicated that a provision in all State standards substantially in accordance with the following is required: Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their PAGENO="0556" 548 existing high quality. These and other waters of a State win not be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State Water pollution control agency and the Department of the Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. This will require that any industrial, public or private project or development which would conStitute a new source of pollu- tion or an increased source ed pollution to high quality Waters will be required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste tr~atment uvailable under existing technology, and, since these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively. 2. Waters to Which the Policy Applies Basically, the policy is designed to protect all waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards. We should be particularly alert to apply it to significant new waste sources on waters which are now considered relatively unpolluted; e.g., location of a new pulp mill on an unpolluted estuary. In addition, however, we must reëognize that the policy to be effective should also apply to Waters which, while already polluted in one respect, would he damaged by a new source of pollution in another respect. For example, waters with high total dissolved solids content may ~till be of high quality with respect to dissolved oxygen. Any new source of pollution which would lower the dis- solved oxygen, thus causing a threat to aquatic life, would be subject to the policy. An alternative approach would be to categorize and liSt the specific waters to which the policy would apply. An inventory of the Waters might be made, based upon evaluations of existing quality and water uses, e.g., waters which now support good fisheries or recreational uses. In effect, this would be selection or zoning of certain waters which merit an extra m~asure of protection. (This is a matter which will have to be resolved at an early stage.) 3. Initiation of the Process The policy applies to all developments-such as new or increased municipal or industrial waste discharges, powerplants, or irrigation projects-which would cause new or increased pollution with respect to any patameter. The first step is for FWPOA to obtain notification of all such proposed developments at an early stage. a. The Regional Directors will be responsible for contacting all States within their jurisdiction to make arrangements for such notification. Each State should be contacted as soon as it has agreed to inclusion of the required antidegradation provision or its equivalent in its standards. Regional Directors should also become familiar with the mechanisms available to each State to regulate such develop- ments (e.g., permit systems). As soon as arrangements have been made with a State for such notification, I-Ieadquarters should be advised. b. For Federal activities, such notification should be accomplished in accord- ance with the July 1967 "Guidelines for Federal Departments, Agencies, and Establishments in the Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Water Pollution by Federal Activities." c. Where other appropriate notification mechanisms exist (e.g., Interagency Agreement with the Department of Defense on dredging permits; Federal Power Commission licensing procedures) these will be utilized. (Note: Headquarters will prepare a list of all such arrangements for the guidance of the Regional Directors.) 4. Determining Conformance with the Policy When the Regional Director is advised of a proposed new development which might degrade water quality, he should: a. Assemble all existing water quality data, in cooperation with the State or States concerned, and evaluate it to determine the levels of existing quality. b. Obtain information on the projected wasteloads or other developments, and forecast their effects on water quality. It will be the responsibility of the waste dischargers to provide such information, which should then be evaluated in- dependently by FWPCA. c. Obtain information on the proposed treatment or waste reduction methods. These methods may be developed through joint discussions with the State, waste dischargers, and design engineers. Determine whether or not the proposed meth- ods represent the best available technology. PAGENO="0557" 549 We have initiated work with the Office of Research and Development to categorize best available technology feasible to be applied to various classes of industries and other sources of pollution. This will be provided to the Regional Directors for guidance as soon as it is available. We will make continuing efforts to keep this information updated and refined. d. Determine whether or not projected water quality changes will interfere with water use. In making such determinations, use the report of the National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria and other pertinent information as a guide. 5. Decisions with Respect to Conformance or Nonconformance with Policy a. If our evaluation indicates that best available technology is not being applied, the State or Federal agency concerned should be notified, with a request for upgrading. b. If the best available technology is being applied, but significant interference with water use will occur, the State or Federal agency should be so notified, and the Regional Director would recommend denial for locating the proposal de- velopment. (In such cases, the ultimate recourse would be a request for revision of standards in accordance with procedures established in the Act.) c. If the increased pollution will not cause significant interference with exist- ing water uses, but will cause degradation, then we must make a determination that "such change is justifiable as a result of economic or social development." If the projected water quality degradation would not interfere with water use and if the best available treatment was being applied, the proposed activity could usually be deemed consistent with "economic or social development." Consideration of "economic and social development" would appear most neces- sary where there is considerable use of and public concern about the water resource involved, and where there is major doubt as to the effects of the pro- posed waste discharge on the resource, and where inordinate expenses and treatment levels might be required. Examples might be complex chemical wastes being discharged after high levels of treatment to waters of outstanding eco- logical value. In these cases such questions as the availability of alternate sites, the relative value of the resource being protected, the economic significance of the polluting activity (e.g., numbers of persons employed, etc.), and the views of the public and other governmental agencies must all be considered. These cases will generally involve considerable controversy or uncertainty concerning the effects of a pollutant on valuable resource. They should be re- ferred to Headquarters on an individual basis. (See No. 7 below.) 6. Views of Other Agencies. It will be extremely important for the Regional Director to determine the views of other States and Federal agencies concerned: a. Where developments in one State would significantly degrade water quality in an `adjacent State, the Regional Director should make arrangements for review of this matter by that State. This can best be accomplished after the evaluation outlined in item 4 has been completed. b. In evaluating the effects of the proposed development upon water use, the Regional Director will be responsible for checking with other Federal agencies concerned to determine their views'. 7. Approval Procedure a. Regional Directors will have the authority to indicate approval for loca- tion of proposed developments which would lower water quality, but which clearly meet the requirements of the Secretary's policy. Such approval should be expressed in a qualified form, to reflect the future possibility of additional control requirements, should circumstances warrant. Appropriate wording will be developed and provided to the Regional Directors for their general use. b. Approval for municipal and private developments should be expressed to the State water pollution control agency concerned. The Construction Grants program should be administered in accordance with this activity. c. Approval for Federal developments should be expressed through procedures established in the July 1967 Guidelines. d. Approval for water resources projects and related activities should be expressed through interagency review procedures and other established procedures. Headquarters will provide the Regional Directors with specific instructions concerning points c and d. PAGENO="0558" 550 e. Regional Directors' recommendations for disapproval should be forwarded to Headquarters for final action by the Commissioner. f. Cases where a determination of "economic and social development" is in- volved should be referred to Headquarters for individual guidance. 8. Headquarters Coordination It is recognized that many questions of interpretation will arise in applying this policy, particularly in the initial stages. These should be addressed to the Water Quality Standards Staff, which will have responsibility for coordinating this activity. 9. Other Program Implications Effective implementation of the Secretary's policy has a number of long-range program implications. It will pose major demands upon FW'PCA resources. It will call for increased emphasis upon: a. Site evaluation through the Comprehensive Program activity, with increased use of mathematical models. b. Increasing the technical capacity of individual regions to make the necessary evaluations. This will involve increasing our competen'cies for dealing with indus- trial waste and other problems through recruitment and training. c. Expanding our pollution surveillance activities in conjunction with the States as rapidly as possible, and developing programs for the STORET' system to provide rapid data evaluations and comparisons. d. `Improving our concept and definitions of what constitutes the best available treatment and controls. e. Effective compliance with the Executive Order and Guidelines procedures by all Federal agencies. EUTROPHICATION Mr. KINNEY. I would like also, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to offer for the record-I do not have it; `but I could send it to you-a summary of the `Conference on Eutrophication, the International Conference on Eutrophication, at Madison, Wis. People `from nfl over the world were there. The recommendations `that they made `suggest that our proposal of just limiting effluents is a bit naive. There are other t'hings th:at might be considered. This might be of real interest to you for Lake Erie. Mr. MCCARTHY. Fine. We would like to receive that very much, Mr. Kinney, and such other information as you have which w'ould be helpful. (Summary referred to follows:) [From August 1967 issue of Industrial Water Engineering] EuTROPHIC SIDELIGHTS (By John F). Kinney, Contributing Editor 1) The International Symposium on Eutrophication, held at Madison, Wisconsin, in June, 1967, `was remarkable in many ways. For example, there were 577 regis- trants from all over the world; despite air conditioning failure during a heat wave, the `auditorium was crowded on all five days of the conference; the speakers were competent, and contrary to many American symposia, reported on present work rather than historical reviews of the literature. The subject was thoroughly explored. If the're was one overriding conclusion I came to as the result of the conference it was that the United State's is woeftlly behind `other nations in `researching and understanding the subject of eutrophication-the aging of lakes. During the conference a spokesman for the Secretary of the Interior an- nounced that the President was going to call the heads of the `soap and chemical 1 J~ E. Kinney is an Independent sanitary engineering consultant with headquarters at Ann Arbor, Michigan. PAGENO="0559" 551 companies together to "discuss" a substitute for phosphates in detergent. The speaker offered this as an example of administrative leadership in solving the eutrophication problem. This notion was prompted by the federal report that detergent is responsible for 80% of the phosphate which causes the algal blooms in Lake Erie-the cause of the death of Lake Erie". Had the spokesman attended the sessions, his headline seeking announcement would not have been made. The scientists merely smiled at such a politically oriented proposal to a complex issue. However, they did not smile at the next confidence. The speaker reported on the embarrassment suffered by Secretary Udall when a scientist in Fish and Wildlife Service had publicly indicated that not enough was known about the causes of trouble in Lake Erie and that caution should be used in making dogmatic decisions. Such a statement after the President had announced full speed ahead was considered inexcusable. However, the speaker assured the audience the federal administration was again of one mind. That disturbed some Europeans, and one asked me the next day whether the speaker had been joking. I replied that I was afraid he `wasn't. Then he asked how much American `research is politically controlled. `My answer was it depends on the agency making the grant, the institution in which the work is done and how hungry the researcher is. He nodded `his `head and said that would explain a mystery-why the pro- ductivity in America is not proportionate to the money reported expended on water resources research. This is not a reflection on all American research-we were in agreement on that-but the American research budget is huge when compared to other nations and the productivity is not in proportion. The greatest deficiency in a conference such as the one on eutrophication is in the mechanics of getting conference proceedings out for interested parties. To report the "news" which this meeting generated would require several arti- cles. Tying it together to permit understanding of all the facets which affect the end result of a particular problem would take another series of articles. Many of the conclusions would undoubtedly be considered by some experts as material they already knew. How much they could have proved would be an- other matter. But at this conference, the proofs or else the assumptions and deficiencies were explored. So was the status of work underway. Among my reactions, after listening to the experts, were these: The federal agency's approach to solving Lake Erie's problem by setting limits on phosphorous and nitrogen is a naive exercise in futili~ty. Blue-green `algae-the nuisance algae in Lake Erie-appear `when the nitro- gen concentration is zero. Blue-greens obtain nitrogen from the air. In Israel when blue-greens appeared as nuisance blooms in fish management ponds, the solution called for maintaining a nitrogen concentra~tion in the pond. Nutrients are important `but even more so is the flow pattern and so is the physi- cal factor of the depth `of the lake. The concentration at `any time is the critical factor, not the load. For example, increasing the flow to a lake will increase load to the lake but if the concentration in the flow remains the same, there will be no change in the lake. Also, the critical load-depth relationship is a straight line of about 45 degree slope. For a given load `a shallow lake could be eutrophic while a deep lake would not. Therefore, if Lake Erie is considered as three lakes, not one-a shallow lake at the western end, a deeper lake in the center and a much deeper lake in the eastern basin-it becomes obvious why the problem in the western basin is not experienced in the others. It also becomes evident the controls to achieve correction in western Lake Erie must include appraisal of flow pattern-even possible diversion of flow around the western lake if ade- quate dispersion to reduce concentration is not possible. It should also be noted that in reality the Detroit River consists of three channels-those along each shore carry higher concentrations of nutrients and essential elements than the center channel which is essentially the same quality as in Lake Huron. The role of sodium and potassium concentrations can be critical in algal blooms. Deliberate efforts to make a lake eutrophic by addition of large amounts of phosphates failed until adequate concentration of sodium and/or potassium was provided. Also some lakes are eutrophic when the concentration of phospho- rous is below the limit proposed by the federal agency f'or Lake Erie (actually in a report drafted by the federal agency and adopted reluctantly by the States). What is important is that the essential elements be present in the required bal- PAGENO="0560" 552 ance. It is; equally important to provide the correct temperature (blue-greens re- quire warmer water) and limited turbidity. In other words, the emphasis on an average annual phosphorous limit bespeaks a lack of understanding of the situation. Carbon dioxide can trigger a bloom. This occurs in waters high in carbonates which are shallow and have organic material on the bottom which can be activated by sunlight to release carbon dioxide. High concentrations of phosphorous occur when the municipal sewage treat- ment plant draws down the digester-from 100 to 1000 ppm in solution hits the stream or lake as a slug. Also, the first rains in ~he spring wash tremen- dous quantities of phosphates and at high `concentrations from land where the farmer spreads manure through the winter. Nitrates added ~o the soil as fertilizer are soluble and tend to percolate to underground water. Phosphates attach to the soil and are carried to the stream with sediment loss from the land. Land management practice revision is needed. Deliberately changing fish populations in lakes in Europe resulted in changes in zooplankton which in turn changed the phytoplankton. In other words not all changes in fish species result from changes in bottom organisms due to pollutional effects. If the commercial fishing is selective over the years and if there are changes in fish species due to accidental or deliberate introductions, the food chain will change to adapt. Both of these conditions have occurred in the Great Lakes. Commercial fishermen effectively eradicated the sturgeon (by 1895) be- cause of their damage to the whitefish nets and concentrated on the whitefish, pike, etc. Meanwhile, the smelt was introduced in 1912 and the lamprey and ale- wife entered via the St. Lawrence and W'elland Canal. Thus, comparisons of types of bottom organisms prevailing 40 years ago with those today is not the whole story. But this could explain why there were changes reported in western Lake Erie in 1930 when pollution was expressly denied `as a factor. Changes in Lake Michigan fisheries coincided with changes in Lake Erie fisheries. The exploding alewife population portends further changes unless there are controls on the alewife. Pollution is the ready excuse but actually it is an almost total lack of fish management with advocates of sports fishing inter- fering with efforts `to intelligently manage the commercial potential. Even if the hoped-for adaptation of coho salmon becomes a reality, the alewife will be more than enough to be food for coho an'd, from all indications, enough to wipe out the other species. But this is another example of how some conservationists can carry a flag with no more objective than a personal selfish interest. The "Standard Methods Syndrome" gives many a false sense of security. The errors in analysis for phosphorous and nitrogen are many but too little ap- preciated. So also is the error in comparing data collected in different years. Sim- ply assuming that data are comparable because Standards Methods were used is an error of magnitude. `Actually, there is also a lack of appreciation of the requirement to separate the fractions which are available, not immediately avail- able or not available. And there are errors resulting from commonly accepted procedures for preserving samples. For example, chloroform results in cell rup- ture and gives orthophosphate if there is much algae. It is doubtful if chemical analysis of water can give an a'ccurate appraisal of controlling or limiting concentrations of elements as such analysis can do for productivity of soils. Certainly no procedure ha~ been developed to date to meas- ure the controlling concentration of nitrogen or phosphorous in the aquatic en- vironment. There is, however, encouragement in data developed to date from analysis of plant tissue. This approach has paid dividends in plants and flowers (terrestrial) and should in aquatic plants. It reduces the analytical work to measurement of cell content. Plotting of yield against concentration of nitrogen anad phosphorous defines critical concentrations-the point where increase in absorption is not accompanied by increase in yield. Productivity of algea is not bad. What is bad is productivity of the wrong kind. With a growing population productivity is needed and should be planned. But so far we don't know how to guide such direction. However, if there is to be effec- tive guidance, the present approach of assessing arbitrary concentration limits must be changed. In place of this prohibitive approach the effort should be to take advantage of eutrophication-not just to control it but even to exploit it to pro- vide fish productivity and manipulate that productivity by controlling additions of nutrient in places where it will do good. Intelligent fish management in lakes or in pens in lakes' at points where tri'butary additions have a significant effect could result in a harvestable crop PAGENO="0561" 553 of useful fish and at the same time effectively strain out the nutrient. This would provide an answer for agricultural wash as well as urban surface drain- age-both major sources of nutrient. Circulation patterns in a lake or river can control the availability of nutrient concentration, as well as temperature and clarity conditions to permit or restrict algal blooms. Intelligent design of such patterns could have other benefits. For example, when fish move to colder or warmer water to get relief from lower dis- solved oxygen, the temperature change can be fatal. (This is particularly true of the alewife which is very temperature sensitive. It blunders into warmer water and dies.) As the dissolved oxygen becomes restrictive-lowering of oxygen below 3 parts per million puts the animal into the area of increased metabolic rate activity-the fish irrigates the gills more rapidly and this increased exposure of dissolved materials to the blood of the fish can be the reason why ammonia, for instance, becomes more toxic at lower DO. This oxykinetic causes the fish to move to a lesser stress area. If the circulation pattern provides a dissipation of concentration of nutrients it would also provide a more even temperature and oxygen gradient. The work reported~ indicated that the 3 ppm of DO is the critical level for start of stress with a rapid increase in stress as the oxygen reduces to 1 ppm. There can be no standards defined to apply to all waters. Each river and lake must be appraised individually. Administrative ease standards are an in- vitation to futility. Adding it all up: Limiting our attention to regulations on sewer outfalls (and even if they are eliminated) will result in a multibillion dollar treatment pro- gram, pea soup algae, and alewives. The agronomist, analyst, economist, lawyer and engineer can apply prin- ciples developed by biologists who are permitted to solve problems rather than "prove" politically inspired conclusions. This conference made a lie out of the "dying Lake Erie" theme. It also reduced the politically motivated directive to a farce. The American approach to research grants and controls in water resources fared similarly. And yet, the conference provided :the data and inter- pretation of the problem which will, if properly supported and implemented, provide solution. Thus, the conference ended with a challenge to those conservationists who still refuse to face reality. If they want to team up with the technically competent in a determination of which waters should serve specific uses in the best public inter- est, the means for protecting those uses can be devised. However, if they continue to evidence a demand to restrict waters for their personal pleasures, achievement will remain nebulous, for their only approach is via legislative means. Oratory, laws and regulations make headlines but do not solve water quality problems. [From June 1967 Issue of Industrial Water Engineering] Eum0PHICATI0N [A BIG WORD IN WATER MANAGEMENT] In recent years as the popular press has tolled the d'ea:th of many of our major water bodies, a new word has been introduced into the vocabulary of many concerned with pollution control-eutrophication. Unfortunately, the word has come to `have as many nñsi'ntei~pretat~'ons as it has mispronunciation's. Those who have long studied the process pronounce it "yoo t'rof I k:a sh'un" and `define it, in general terms, as an aging or maturing process which occurs in natural water `bodies. Since eutrophication has literally become a "big word" in water management we asked Gerald A. Rohlich, Director of the University of Wisconsin's Water Resources Center, to discuss its meaning and significance in greater detail. As Chairman of the first International Symposium on Eutrophication, held at the University of Wiscon~i'n `this month, he has been intensely involved in improving communication on the subject. But since there are many facets of eutrophication which can (and do) fill volumes, we have asked Professor Ro'hiich to risk over-simplification and take an "overs~iew" of the problem in this interview. There are many noteworthy engineers in the country today and many note- worthy teachers of engineers. It is a rarity, however, `when bo'th description's are 94-376-GS---36 PAGENO="0562" 554 applied to one man. In this sense Professor Rohlich is a rarity. He holds the Harrison Prescott Eddy Medal from the Water Pollution Control Federation for outstanding research and also the Benjamin Smith Reynolds Award from the University of Wisconsin for excellence in teaching engineers. A civil engineer by training, Professor Rohlich received B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin. Prior to his present position he served as associate dean of Wisconsin's graduate school, associate professor at Penn State, and instructor of civil engineering at Carnegie Tech. He has also held positions as: Engineering Assistant for the Bureau of Sewers, New York City; Ohief Project Engineer for ESNA Corpor'a:tion; and `Senior Sanitary Engineer, Office Chief of Engineers, War Department Dr. Rohlic'h, is Lake Erie dead? I'm not sure what the word "dead" means in this context. The fate of any lake is extinction. Our whole environment is constantly being altered by natural forces. In the case of `a lake there is a gradual but constant encroachment by land . . . a filling in of inlets and outlets with sediment . . . an erosion of the surrounding soil. The terms "dying" and "dead" when applied to a natural water body are therefore relative and can he very `misleading. A "dying" lake, then, is not necessarily a cesspool No. But there may be some public confusion on this point. For example, some may refer to a lake as dying because it has a decreasing capability to be used for specific purposes. If a lakeshore became choked up with undesirable weeds they would interfere with swimming or boating, and the lake's usefulness for these purposes mi'ght be considered to be "dying." In the case `of Lake E'rie for example, authorities report that its productivity in terms of total fish catch has not changed :s'ignifi'catitly but that the variety of fish caught has `changed. From this standpoint, the capability of Lake Erie to support certain species of fish j:5 on the decline. On the `other `hand, there are other bodies of water which have deteriorated `to the point where they are essentially cesspool's. What causes the `deterioration in natural wat'er bodies? Some deteriorate through the process of eutrophication. In the broad context this is a process of enrichment often accompanied `by a change in `the natural "balance" of aquatic organism which th'e water is capable of `supportingg. It is caused `by fertilization of the water as nutrients enter it from many sources. Just as fertilizer `makes your lawn grow, the addition of nutrients such as ph'osphorous an'd nitrogen to water increases the growth of algae and aquatic weeds. The difference is that large concentrations of algae in water are undesirable. Why? Like terrestrial plants, algae produce oxygen from carbon dioxide, using sun- light as energy. In the absence of sunlight, however, plants reverse the process. consuming oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide. In a well-kept acquarium a balance is established so that the plants don't use more oxygen than they give off. The problem in a natural water body, however, is that large accumulations of algae are concentrated by wind action and at night begin to draw oxygen from the water . . . in extreme cases, completely depleting the water's supply. The deterioration in water quality then becomes self-sustaining . . . rotting vegeta- tion releases more nutrients which promote algal growth which continues to use oxygen and so on. The algae also often create turbidity in the water and are a cause of tastes and odors. Are water pollution and euthrophication one and `the same? No. Whil'e it is true that some types of pollution accelerate eutrophication, contamination of water with pollutants such as arsenic, DDT, or copper com- pounds do not contribute nutrients for plant growth. They, of course, may cause other detrimental effects. The words pollution and eutrophication should not therefore be used synonymously. Is eutrophication a natural process? You might consider it both a natural and cultural process. Normal precipitation and drainage from forest or plain areas contribute nutrients to water. This is a natural condition so that even if man were not around the lakes would go through an aging process. But the natural processes of enrichment and sedimentation are often accelerated by man's activities. In altering the landscape by agricultural development, urbanization, and by the discharge of sewage and other pollutants, man has increased the rate of eutrophication. Has eutrophication reached crisis proportions in the country? PAGENO="0563" 555 Here again this depends on what you mean by "crisis." Certainly if you made your living fishing on a particular lake and all the fish were dying, it would be a crisis. But the major problem with eutrophication today is that it is interfering with the aesthetic and recreational uses of our lakes. The big point is that we've got to start now to do whatever we can to stop euthophication from accelerating. We've got to begin more intensive study and planning so that it doesn't build to crisis conditions in the future. Does eutrophication pose a health problem? I don't believe there is any direct relationship between eutrophication and the suitability of the water for, say, drinking purposes provided that it is given proper treatment. Depending on how badly the water has deteriorated, of course, there may be some additional cost in preparing it for potable use. What do we need to do to keep eutrophication from getting out of hand? That's a big question. But let me put it this way at the risk of oversimplificaion we've got to accumulate more data on the sources of nutrients entering a par- ticular water body and the relative effects of specific ones, and then establish priorities for reducing them. The problem involves not only technical and eco- nomic considerations but also institutional arrangements. For example, if a drainage area covers hundreds of cities, several counties, and a few states, you can see that there might be some administrative difficulties in approaching the problem. What are the major nutrients involved? Phosphorus and nitrogen are most frequently mentioned as being of primary importance. There are other elements such as iron, magnesium, calcium, silicon, sulfur, manganese, sodium, potassium, carbon, etc. which are also involved in the metabolism of aquatic plants and these may be limiting factors in algal growth. What quantities of phosphorus and nitrogen cause excessive algal growth? It is not possible to answer that question categorically. Each body of water must be investigated separately in evaluating the overall problem. A useful ap- proach, however, is to determine the growth response to various nutrient levels by a bio-assay test. In other words, actually measure the algal growth with dif- :ferent levels of nutrients present. In this way you can determine what the critical levels are in a particular water body. What problems does this data gathering present? First of all, nitrogen and phosphate analyses are a bit more tricky than tests for, say, chloride. Past data on these constituents may be difficult to evaluate since sometimes we don't know how the numbers were arrived at. Then, too, the data must be accumulated over a long period of time to determine general trends. On a short-term basis, a decrease in nutrient level, for example, may be ~misinterpreted . . . it may only be a temporary dip in a rising curve. Should we approach the problem by simply trying to eliminate phosphate and nitrogen discharges into lakes? We can't, of course, eliminate these when they come from natural sources. Whenever it is practical to cut down on cultural pollution of this kind it would undoubtedly help. But we can't willy-nlfly decide to remove all nitrogen and phosphate from discharges, however, since they may not in all cases be seriously contributing to the eutrophication problem. For example, these may be minor elements which are limiting factors in algal growth (even in the presence of phosphate). We need to check this out carefully to determine whether or not the reduction in phosphate and nitrogen results -in the decrease in algal growth desired. One of the big difficulties in dealing with eutrophication right now is that you can use available statistics to support various approaches in combatting it. And in many cases, the results of tidy and neat work in the lab just can't be extrapolated to conditions in nature. Why is the problem so complex? A natural body of water such as a lake is a dynamic "organism" and there are many interrelated factors which affect its metabolism. Not only do you have to consider the biological and chemical factors, but also the physical factors which have a bearing on eutrophication . . . geological history, climate, thermal properties, hydrology of the drainage basin . . . to name only a few. Then, too, in addition to determining the rate of eutrophication of a particular lake it becomes necessary to differentiate between "normal" and cultural contributions to this rate. This is important in determining the degree of a lake's recover- ability. But establishing a base line of "normal" eutrophication isn't easy because there aren't many good records available on conditions before man started con- - tributing to it. PAGENO="0564" 55~6 What are some possible approaches in minimizing eutrophication? First of all, it is easier to prevent cultural eutrophication than to cure it. This presupposes an awareness of the problem and proper development around water courses in zoning residential, industrial, or recreational areas. The remedial approaches which are possible include: (1) diversion of sewage or other nutrient sources away from the lake or stream involved; (2) dredging of bottom muds containing concentrated nutrients; (3) removal of rough fish which stir up nutrients from sediment and/or cultivation of plankton-eating fish which are later removed; (4) harvesting of weeds or algae; (5) low-flow augmentation to increase flushing and aid in dilution; (6) the use of chemicals to control algal growth; (7) the removal of nutrients from wastewater prior to discharge, etc. Will you summarize your outlook on the problem of eutrophication? I'm basically encouraged by the recent increased interest in eutrophication. This is a big first step in organizing to control it. I'm somewhat concerned, how- ever, that many people may be misled in thinking there are simple solutions. Eutrophication is basically a recreational and aesthetic problem. Our approach to counteracting it must be realistic. We can't expect to get into a 300-horsepower auto, drive along a four-lane highway, and step off into the wilderness. But we can begin increased efforts to learn more about eutrophication and how to combat it. Our technical people have a responsibility to provide decision makers with enough factual information, including the economic considerations involved. Unlike rivers and streams, our lakes are not apt to be cleaned up rapidly by pollution abatement practices alone since there is more restricted circulation. But we've got to begin now to increase our efforts in: (1) realistically assessing the condition of our lakes and (2) setting priorities on where we want to spend our dollars in eliminating nutrients. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. As usual, you have made a great contribution and we are very grateful. Mr. KINNEY. It is a pleasure. Mr. MCCARTHY. Next is Alexander B. Hawes, American Waterways Operators, Inc. Mr. Hawes, we are delighted to have you here. You have an asso- ciate with you. STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER B. HAWES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY MARKHAM BALL Mr. HAWES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee. I have with me Mr. Markham Ball of our office. We are coun- sel to American Waterways Operators. The American Waterways Operators, Inc., which I shall refer to as KWO, welcomes this opportunity to present certain comments on the legislation being considered by this committee to regulate waste and oil pollution from vessels. Before giving these comments, I should like briefly to identify AWO. It is the national trade association that represents the in- terests of, and includes in its membership, water carriers of all types operating on U.S. inland waterways, and carriers operating tugs and barges in coastwise and intercoastal trade. CONTROL OF POLLL~TION FROM VESSELS With respect to H.IR. 13923, AWO has these comments: 1. Uniformüy of `regulation.-It is of the utmost importance that regulations and required equipment relating to waste from vessels PAGENO="0565" 557 be uniform throughout the United States. Both commercial and rec- reationa.l vessels constantly cross State lines. The Interior Depart- ment report of last year lists 29 States having regulations on waste from vessel. In addition, there are eight interstate compacts under which such regulations can be, if they have not already been, promul- gated. At the present time, many of the regulations are widely ig- nored and casually enforced, if at all. If however, as a result of the mounting concern over water pollution, local authorities begin to enforce their widely varying requirements, the consequence could be potential disaster for owners and operators of vessels crossing State lines. H.R. 13923 does not provide the desired uniformity. It merely adds Federal requirements on top of existing, and possible future, state or local requirements. The bill should be amended and strengthened to provide that when regulations are issued under it, they preempt the field and no regulations of other authorities directed to combating pollution shall have any force or effect. 2. Gentrali~ation of authority and responsibility at the Federal Zevei.-Al1 authority and responsibility for promulgation and en- forcement of regulations controlling waste from vessels in order to prevent pollution should be centralized in one agency. `Where neces- sary, this agency should be authorized to delegate certain responsi- bilities, for instance with respect to enforcement. H.H. 13923 proposes to give authority to a single agency, the Department of the Interior is specified in the bill, but fails to make its authority exclusive. The bill should make clear, by appropriate amendment to existing legis- lation, that all previously existing authority in other agencies to regulate su~h pollution, for example, under the Refuse Act and the New York Harbor Act, is transferred to the same department. At the same time, amendments should make clear that the powers remaining in the Corps of Engineers are limited to regulations to prevent ob- ~truction of navigation. Section 11 of the Federal `Water Pollution Act, as proposed by H.R. 13923, does not apply to oil. Section 12, as proposed, does apply to oil discharges in the contiguous zone. The authority is placed in the Secretary of the Interior to regulate these so far as they pollute territorial waters or are deleterious to health or marine life or dan- gerous to persons or property within U.S. territory. The authority of the Corps of Engineers to regulate discharges which may be an obstruction to navigation is recognized in the bill. Oil discharges have traditionally been subject to separate legislation, and it seems to us that an overall updating of the Oil Pollution Acts by a new act on oil would be preferable to the piecemeal change that would be effected by H.R. 13923 in this respect. 3. Advisory Board.-The Advisory Board established under the Federal `Water Pollution Control Act should be increased to include members who are knowledgeable in the field of waste from vessels, or a separate board to advise with respect to the implementation of H.R. 13923 should `be set up. Among others, the barge, tug and tow- `boat industry should be represented on any such board. 4. Extension of section 11 provision$ to section 1g.-Section 12 ex- tends to the 9-mile c'ontiguous zone b~yond the territorial waters of PAGENO="0566" 558 the United States the authority to control waste from vessels. Just. as it is important to have uniformity of regulation on the navigable waters of the United States, it is in~porta.nt that the scheme of regula- tion and the regulations themselves applied in the contiguous zone should be as uniform as possible, within the boundaries of interna- tional law, with those applying to the navigable waters. Accordingly, for example, in issuing regulations under section 12, the Secretary of the Department should take into consideration the factors referred to in section 11 (a) ; for example, technological feasibility, economic costs, the types of vessels, their operating patterns. Provision for compliance schedules such as those now in section 11 (a) (1) should apply to regulations unde.r section 12. The authority to exempt classes. of vessels provided in section 11(c) should be granted to the Secretary in issuing regulations under section 12. The same kind of consultation or as suggested below, hearing, required under sect.ion 11(d) should be required irnder section 12. The same procedure for certification of sewage control equipment provided in section 11(e) Should be avail- able under section 12. If, as is suggested later in this statement, the use and maintenance of certified eqthpment satisfies the requirements of section 11, such use and maintenance should satisfy the require- ments of section 12. 5. Con-bp~iance schedules.-TJnder section 11(a) (1), in issuing regu- lations to control sewage discharges the Secretary of the Department is required to establish reasonable schedules for compliance a.nd such schedules are required to dist~inguish between new and existing vessels. These same requirements should be made applicable in regulating dis- charge of gai~bage, litter, or other waste as to which treatment equip- ment may `be developed. 6. Procedure for issuance of regulations.-The proposed legislation does not require the Secretary to hold hearings before promulgating his regulations. He is required, under section 11(d), to consult with industry and Federal and State agencies before issuing regulations under section 11 and to give interested persons and agencies a. reason- afble opportunity t.o comment on these regulations before they t.a.ke effect. To assure that all interested parties have their views fully con- sidered, AWO recommends that the legislation require notice and opportunity for a hearing before the regulations are adopted. The Secretary Should `be required to make findings as to the facts on which regulations are based, and the right of judicial review should be pro- vided to interested parties on t.he questions of whether findings of fact are based on substantial evidence and whether the regulations are reasonable in light of `the findings made. In addition, the provisions for notice and opportunity for a hearing on the regulations in `advance of adoption and for judicial review Should be made applicable to regulations under section 12. 7. Enforcernent.-~The provisions for inspection under sec~ion 11(j) of the proposed bill may lend themselves to abuse. No limitation as to time or circumstances is imposed on the right of inspectors to board and inspect vessels. The broad inspection procedures may indeed pre- sent constitutional questions, at least in the case of criminal prosecu- tions. Instead of the present provisions of section 11(j), provision could be made for periodic inspection of vessels. The right to board at PAGENO="0567" 559 other times should be limited to cases in which enforcement officers have probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Like the right to arrest, the right to inspect, except periodically, should also be limited to cases `in which `the officer `obtained a warrant or in which `a violation was committed in his presence. This recommendation w'ou'ld parallel the provisions of the Refuse' Act, New York Harbor Act, `and `Oil Pollution Act of 1924. These acts require all `arrests, except f'or violations committed in the presence of an enforcement officer, to be made with process. In addition, it should be made clear that there can be no liability for `sewage `disch'arges on `the part of `a person who properly uses and maintains certified sewage control equipment. 8. Researeh.-T'hc researc'h provisions of the Water Pollution Con- trol Act should be amended to make clear that they include develop- ment of practical riiethods `of treating waste from vessels and of handling such wasto so `as to prevent its deposit in the waters in question. The present research provisions seem to `be directed wholly to treatment o'f land-originated sewage. 9. Reports to Uongress.-To assure continuing oversight by Congress, it would be desirable to provide for periodic reports by `the Secretary of the Department to Congress on his proposed programs, including the state of knowledge of water pollution and means of control, esti- mates of costs of compliance, and proposed regulatory action. The' Secretary should also report periodically on the actual progress of `the program, including results of research, costs of compliance, and the' program's success in reducing water pollution. OIL POLLUTION CONTROL I turn now to H.R. 14000, and specifically to section 4(a), providing for a new section 19 on oil pollution control to be inserted in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Members of AWO include owners of oil tank barges, `as well as tow- boat and tugboat owners wh'o use oil as fuel. Both groups are vitally' interested in this proposed legislation. R'ecent maritime disasters involving oceangoing tankers have called' attention to the serious consequences of major oil spills. I understand the principal objectives of the new section 19 to be to induce greater care to prevent oil discharges an'd to make those responsible for oil spills' primarily liable for the damage they cause. A1~TO is wholly in sym- pathy with these objectives and with the efforts being made to `control, and `to the greatest extent possible eliminate, pollution by oil discharges' in the navigable waters of the United States. At the `same time, oil pollution controls are a complex su'bject, as I am sure this committee well understands. The proposed legis'lation~ covers not only tankers, but towboats, tugboats, and barges as well. It covers vessels on `the ocean within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it covers vessels in our relatively crowded harbors and inland waterways. AWO supports reasonable legislation `to control oil pol- lution from all vessels in all the navigable waters of the United States. We feel most strongly, however, that legislation must be shaped to circumstances. Laws appropriate for the supertanker may not be appropriate for the barge on the inland waterways. PAGENO="0568" 560 LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT AND LIABILITY WITHOUT LIMIT In two major respects, we. feel that proposed section 19-in partic- ular subsection (e)-is not reasonable, at least when applied to the barge and towing industry. This subsection would impose upon an owner or operator of a vessel the duty, subject only to an exception for "acts of God," to remove oil discharged by the vessel into navigable waters. If he fails to remove the oil, the Secretary may remove the oil and charge the owner or operator the cost. 1. Liability withov.t fault.-The first of AWO's difficulties with subsection 19(e) is this: subject to the "act of God" exception, the. subsection would impose liability without regard to fault on the part of the owner or operator. The logic of excusing liability in one type of instance where the owner or operator is wit:h~ut fault., but retaining it in others, is difficult to understand. If a. vessel is wrecked by an irnforeseeable storm, there will be no liability. On the other hand, if it strikes an uncharted reef, or if-to put the contrast most plainly-it is wrecked in a collision in which the other vessel was wholly at fault, it will be subject to the liability. To hold `a vessel owner liable is~here lie is not in the least `at fault, or indeed where the loss is the fault of another, is a radical departure from the most basic principles of our law, and from our basic notions of fa'irplay. If experience had shown that, except for acts of God, oil discharges do not occur unless the owner or operator is negligent, this feature of `the provision mig~ht be justified as a rough way of putting liability where the fault is. Bat this is not so. Parthiculai~ly in the more confined and crowded circumstances or harbors and inland water- ways, `experience `teaches that spills are frequently the fault of other vessels, or shore-based dockworkers or stevedores, or the result of unavoidable `haz,ards, such as uncharted shoals, or wrecks. There `are ha~aTds, not the least of which is ThIte hazard of the negligent acts of others, that `an owner or operator cannot avoid by the exercise of the highest care. To impose liability for an event that the owner or operator is powerless to foresee or prevent does not conform to on&s ordin'ivry sense `of justice. It also seems somewhat odd that the criminal penalty, imposed by subsection (d) should require pro'of of willful violation of the pro- hibItions against discharge aiid that the $10 thousand civil penalty of subsection (d) should be subject Ito the exceptions of emergency, un- avoidable `accident, collison, or stranding, but what could be a liability running to many thousands of dollars for removal of discharged oil is to be imposed without regard to `fault. The American Petroleum instifute has suggested, as a substitute for absolute `liabilty, `a rebuttable presumption of negligence in the evenit of `an oil discharge. If this were merely to shift to the vessel owner or operator the burden `of going forward with the evidence, it would be certainly more `acceptable than the imposition `of liability without fault. And It may be `appropriate for oceangoing tankers exposed to the dangers `of the `high `seas. Such a vessel may `disappear, leaving no evidence to establish whether the sinking was due to negligence or unavoidable accident, or an act `of God. There may be no witnesses to the discharge `at `all or `only the master and crew of the PAGENO="0569" 561 vessel involved. In such a situation, it may be fair to presume, at least until the vessel owner has offered evidence to the contrary, that the clis- charge was due to negligence. In the case of tugs and barges operatmg on the inland waterways and close to shore, however, the likelihood of complete disappearance of all evidence is practically nil. The vessel or vessels involved can be examined, and witnesses can be found. There seems no reason, therefore, to change the ordinary rules of evidence. The Government, with its resources of able legal and investigative staff and the powers of discovery under the Federal rules, should have no difficulty in establishing negligence if there was negligence. 2. Liability without limit.-Combined with liability without fault is an even more disturbing feature of this subsection, the fact that the liability imposed is without limit. Except for perhaps the largest oil companies, who may be financially strong enough to act as self-insur- ers, most owners and operators will have to resort to insurance to pro- tect themselves against the liability imposed by this bill. So far as AWO has been able to determine, however, there are no underwriters in this country or Great Britain willing to write insurance against unlimited liability. This fact means that, while undoubtedly owners and operators would increase their coverage as a result of the bill, they could well remain ultimately exposed to an uninsured liability that in the case of smaller companies might wipe them out. TUG AND BARGE OPERATIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE OF SEAGOING VESSELS This risk is particularly serious in the case of tug and barge oper- ators, which, typically, are small companies operating one to three tugs, or perhaps no more than a single barge, and whose resources are therefore limited. We therefore strongly support the position of the American Petro- leum Institute and other witnesses who have urged that some limitation of liability must be established. We do not agree, however, with the amount of the limitation pro- posed by the American Petroleum Institute. The API formula of $250 per gross registered ton with an overall limit of $8 million, appro- priate though it may be for tankers that carry up to 100,000 or 300,000 tons of oil, is not appropriate for the circumstances of barge operations. The largest tank barges seldom carry more than 3,000 tons or 20,000 barrels. Their gross registered tonnage is seldom more than about 1,300 tons. The API formula, however, would establish a liability of over $300,000 for each of such barges, although their cost now is only about $150,000 apiece. In other words, the proposed limitation would be about double the value of a new barge and could well be many times greater than the limit of liability under existing law. In contrast, the API formula, when applied to a $20 million supertanker, would limit liability to less than 50 percent of the owner's investment in the tanker. At the same time, the dangers of damage from barge transportation are in an entirely different order of magnitude from those of ocean tanker operation. Tank barges are built with a number of comnpart- ments, rarely less than six and running up to 12. The largest compart- ment carries no more than 4,000 barrels or 600 tons. Most are smaller, say, 2,200 barrels or 300 tons. The usual accident involves the holing of one compartment. Frequently a damaged vessel can be brought to PAGENO="0570" 562 shore or the leak stopped before all of the oil from even one compart- ment is lost. Sinkings of barges are extremely rare. In 25 years of operations, Ashland Oil and Refining Co., with the largest single fleet, has had `two sinkings, one partial and one complete. The most costly recent oil cleanup from a barge spill* of which AWO is aware was the cleanup of a large oil slick in a tributary of the Mississippi, at a cost of $20,000. According to one large company, the cost of cleaning up an oil spill from a barge is typically $3,000 to $4,000. These costs contrast with the cost of the English cleanup following the Torry Canyon disaster, in the amount of $10 million. We would propose, therefore, that a limit be fixed for maximum liability under subsection 19(e), and that this limitation be fixed in the case of tugs, barges, and similar vessels to an amount reasonably related both to the limited danger that these carriers present and to the limited financial resources of the owners and operators of t'hese vessels. For these carriers, the limitation could be based on the oil-carrying capacity of the vessel but should not exceed the value of the vessel before the acciden't. This separate treatment of tugs, barges, and similar vessels would be in keeping with the longstanding congressional policy expressed in the Limitation of Liability Act. Tugs, towboats, and barges are ex- pressly excluded from t'he definition of "seagoing vessel" in `the Lia- bility Act and are subject to different treatment. Recognizing the greater capacity for damage, and the greater risk of total loss in the case of an accident involving a seagoing vessel, Congress in the Limita- tion of Liability Act has established one limitation for seagoing yes- `sels and a separate, lower, limitation for other vessels. AWO urges that, regardless of the limit established for oceangoing tankers, a limitation be established for vessels that are not seagoing vessels, as that term is defined in `t'he Liability Act, that is realistic in light of the `nature and operations of these nonseagoing vessels. These, then, are the major recommendations of AWO on H.R. 14000: First, liability for the removal of oil spills under subsection 19(e) `should be `based on negligence. Second, liability should be limited in the case of nonseagoing vessels to an amount related `to the oil-carrying capacity of the vessels. The limit should be no `higher than the value of the vessel before the accident. GOOD SAMARITAN PROVISION Finally, let me add a word on a separate point. Other witnesses have recommended amending the proposed legislation to include a "good Samaritan" provision to encourage prompt action to con'tain and clean up oil spills as soon as they occur. Even under subsection 19(e) in its `present proposed form, `there will be some spills for which vessel owners will have no cleanup responsibility. There seems to be no doubt, however, among those knowledgeable in this field, that damage from oil spills can be kept to a minimum if efforts are exerted promptly to contain and clean them up. Vessel owners should be encouraged to `begin this work at once, in `the event of every oil discharge, regardless ~of their ultimate legal liability to clean up the spill. PAGENO="0571" 563 We believe, therefore, that the legislation should provide compensa- tion for vessel owners who incur costs in cleaning up or containing oil spills in cases in which subsection 19(e) imposes no liability for cleanup. Compensation should be paid out of the revolving fund to `be established under subsection 19(f). Members of AWO are already working independently to improve techniques and equipment for handling oil and for dealing with spills. A number of harbors are now installing oil booms and other equip- ment to deal with spills. These efforts should be encouraged. A "good `Samaritan," in this case the vessel owner who cleans up an oil spill for which he was not responsible, should have the cost of these efforts for the public good reimbursed. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Hawes. Any questions, Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCEWEN. No. I join in thanking you for this fine statement. Mr. MCCARTI-IY. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Hawes. Mr. HAWES. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. The next witness is ,Joe Choate, vice president, Na- tional Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM RECREATIONAL WATERCRAFT STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. CHOATE ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OF ENGINE & BOAT MANUFACTURERS Mr. CHOATE.. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- preciate `the opportunity to appear at this hearing today on behalf of the National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers. I might express the hope that our position on the agenda reflects the evaluation of the importance of pollution from recreation of boats. My principal remarks will be directed to H.R. 13923, to regulate waste discharge from pleasure boats. This association was organized in 1904, and today we represent 430 individual manufacturing com- panies in the boating industry. `While most companies in this industry are relatively smaTi, our membership represents the major portion of industry production both in units and in dollars. The chief purpose of our association is "to protect, to promote, further, and advance the interests of its members, as manufacturers and sellers of marine engines, marine motors, and boats of every kind and description and accessories thereto." NAEBM has been actively concerned with the problem of water pollution emanating from recreational watercraft since the early 1950's. We realize then tha.t, with the growing popu- larity of boating, new problems would arise and one such problem would be that of waste disposal, even though, in our opinion, the amount of effluent being discharged from recreational craft was and is minute in terms of the total water pollution problem. Neverthe- less, because of our concern back in the early 1950's, the industry then initiated a program which has been developed along four lines. 1. Education; 2. Development of standards; 3. Product evaluation through testing; PAGENO="0572" 564 4. Stressing coordination and uniformity of boating laws at Federa1~ and State levels. EDUCATION 1. Education.-lt is our belief that a very significant method by' which to reduce the problem of waste disposal is through sound, con- structive, educational programs. I believe that the National Litterbug Campaign is a good example of the kind of constructive results that can be gained from extensive promotional and educational efforts. As another example, through one NAEBM antipollution poster cam- paign, a sample of which I have brought along today, we encouraged boatowners to use onshore facilities to make every effort `to keep our waters clean. This is the poster. It says "Pollution Solution. Two Heads Are Better than One. Use the One Onshore" [indicating]. We have distributed over 20,000 of these posters nationwide to marinas, yacht clubs, and other waterfront `organizations. A new poster is now in preparation for use during the coming season. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR DEVICES 2. Deve~oprnent of Standards.-The second phase of our program involved the development of waste treatment devices of `sys~e~ms feasible for use in small boats. I'm sure you gentlemen appreciate that installation of any such equipment on small craft presents problems of some magnitude. I refer to space, weight, and cost limitations, the problem of adequate power and, a'bove all, the safety of the craft and its passengers. The first order of business was to create standards to cover the performance and the safe use of all devices. To do this all-important task, the NAEBM turned to the American Boat and Yacht Council, a broad based membership organization. devoted to the development of safety standards `for the design, con- struction, and equippage of small craft. The ABYC initiated the' development of its "A-8 Standard for Sewage Treatment Devices for' Marine Toilet Wastes" on January 23, 1957. I might add, the NAEBM encouraged the need to include "safety" as a part of such standards development because truly sophisticated development of holding or treatment devices must not only control `bacteria discharged into the waters, but must also be safe in terms of its construction and opera-~ tion for the protection of the boat and its passengers. I must add, that this A-8 Standard is recogniz~d today throughout the industry, as a realistic and sophisticated criterion for disposal systems. PRODUCT EVALUATION 3. Product Evaluation Through Testing.-A third function was nec- essary to complete the job. That was to implement advisory standards by providing adequate testing of the devices. To accomplish this, the NAEBM helped reorganize the nonprofit testing laboratory, the Yacht Safety Bureau, ~vhich, in the early 1960's, undertook a complete test- ing procedure o'f all available waste treatment `devices using the ABYC Standard as the performance requirement. PAGENO="0573" 565 COORDINATED UNIFORM LAWS 4. Stressing Coordination and Uniform~ity of Boating Laws at Fed- ~rai and State Levels.-At the same time the NAEBM was working with ABYC and YSB to establish safety standards and testing, we were also working on the broader problem of developing proper na- tional policies and procedures that would assure some uniformity of enforcement and administration of boating laws among the States. In our opinion, the Federal Boating Act of 1958, which we actively en- couraged and supported, accomplished this objective. It set the guide- lines for creating the necessary uniformity and reciprocity, and it established the mechanism for effective Federal-State action concern- ing any problem facing those involved in recreational boating-in- cluding the problem of antipollution systems or devices. With the 1958 Federal Boating Act and the standardsmaking work of ABYC two very important parts of a total comprehensive effort to resolve the problem were accomplished. In 1963 the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, NASBLA, organized a commit- tee charged with the responsibility of compiling a report on the nature and extent of pollution of the ~waters of the United States by recrea- tional watercraft and to make recommendations relative thereto. The committee of administrators, in the course of their duties, sent a questionnaire to over 200 heaJds of health, engineering, sanitation, and boating enforcement agencies to determine from the experts an esti- mate of the effect pleasure boats had on pollution, an idea of the number of boats actually involved, and an estimate of the number of days they were used. In November of 1965 the committee presented an official report ~f their findings to the membership of NASBLA. This excellent report indicated that pollution from recreational boats was, at most, negligible. We believe that this statement still holds true today. NASBLA did not just stop there. In an effort to encourage uni- formity among the widely varying State laws, they prepared a "Model Law" for the regulation of disposal of sewage from watercraft and to prohibit littering of waterways. This model serves as a uniformity guide and includes broad specifications for all types of devices. As an example of a coordinated effort, one State, New York, a leader in the NASBLA Organization as well as in the development of laws regulating vessel discharges, is now completing an extensive study under the direction of the Yacht Safety Bureau. In our opinion, New York could possibly have a most workable, economical, and acceptable law, which could be adopted by other States in the country thus meet- ing required criteria of the Federal or State agencies involved in the problem. An interesting point is that the New York State law, modeled after NASBLA suggested law, uses the American Boat & Yacht Coun- cil project A-8 standard on sewage treatment devices which was adopted in July 1964; and will probably recognize testing procedures currently being developed by the Yacht Safety Bureau. Both of these organizations submitted testimony before the Sen- ate Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. I would like to submit for the record copies of the state- ments which were presented before the committee. PAGENO="0574" 56,6 Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, they will be printed in the rec- ord at this point. (The statements follow:) AMERICAN BOAT AND YACHT COUNCIL, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y., March 28, 1968. To: United States Senate Committee on Public Works, Sub-Committee on Air and Water Pollution. From: American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc. Subject: ABYC Statement on 5. 2525, a Bill to amend the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Act, April 3, 1908. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and guests, thank you for inviting me to this hearing on behalf of the American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc. The American Boat and Yacht Council was organized in 1954 to establish an advisory code of safety standards for the design and construction of small craft and their equipment. It is a broad-based technical society drawing its membership from the boating industry; the government, including the United States Coast Guard and the State Boating Law Administrators, the marine insurance indus- try, and, finally, the general public which includes such groups as the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the United States Power Squadrons. These 14 years of diligent effort by the volunteers who serve on the Council's Technical Committees have merited the support of the Council by the United States Coast Guard, the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers (a leading trade association in the boating industry), state boating law adminis- trators, and boaters themselves. Admiral Willard J. Smith, Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, in- cluded the following statement typical of this support in his preface to the 1968 edition of SAFETY STANDARDS FOR SMALL CRAFT, the official publica- tion of the American Boat and Yacht Council: To ensure that the trust of the novice boatman is well founded, the Coast Guard has long supported the concept of a broad-based standards-making body for the boating industry. With all interests fairly represented, the result is high quality standards developed in the best interest of the boating public. "The American Boat and Yacht Council is such a broad-based standards-making body. The recommendations of the Council developed by engineers, designers, manufacturers, surveyors, and marine insurers-represent the composite opinion of the industry." Project A-8, Sewage Treatment Devices for Marine Toilet Wastes, was formally initiated by the Council on January 23, 1957. On February 10, 1958, the Com- mittee's report was released to the Council, the boating field, and all interested parties as a Proposed Standard. The objective of this release was to elicit ileld comment from all quarters. As a result of field comment, the report was revised and adopted as a standard in September, 1959. Additional field comment was received and the standard amended in 1961 and 1963, and these amendments were adopted by the Council's Technical Board in September of 1964. At a meeting of the Technical Board on October 19, 1906, the scope of Project A-8 was expanded to include all types of sewage treatment and holding devices. The A-8 Committee membership was expanded to a total of 22 members repre- senting manufacturers, users, Coast Guard, state pollution control agencies, and specialists. The complete committee roster is appended hereto. This broad-based Committee has now divided the project into the following major areas: 1. Retention Devices 2. Recirculating Devices 3. Chemical-Macerator Devices 4. Incinerating Devices Subsequent sections are available for devices not under consideration now and which are still being developed. These include devices using ultrasonics, pasteur- ization, chemical heat and others. The standard is continually under review, and all current comments received are given consideration. The American Boat and Yacht Council Standard A-S above-referenced covers item #3 of the above list, namely Chemical-Macerator Devices. A recent pro- posed standard has been developed for item #1 of the above list, namely Reten- tion Devices. Copies of both of these sections are appended. These standards are PAGENO="0575" 567 performance oriented and spell out that which is to be accomplished by the respective devices. An appropriate coliform bacteria count for the effluent of the chemical-macerator device is specified. Safety standards for the installation, operation and electrical equipment of the devices are incorporated either directly or by reference. The standaM is used by many agencies at both the State and National level as the basis for legislation and/or testing of proprietary devices. The A-S Committee is making every effort to coordinate their work with the National Sanitation Foundation which has recently decided to develop a separate standard on Pollution Control Devices for Watercraft. In fact, a joint meeting of the two Committees has been scheduled by the Chairman of the A-8 Committee for Tuesday, April 23, 1008, at the ABYC office. The Council maintains itself in an ethical and broad-based form so that its standards can be useful to governmental and regulatory bodies, and so that the boating industry can truly regulate itself. We cooperate wholeheartedly with the Yacht Safety Bureau, and support the proper testing procedures as performed by them. The American Boat and Yacht Council stands ready to assist this Committee and the various Departments involved in establishing safety standards for the control of pollution from vessels using the navigable waters of the United States. The Council's standards can be incorporated directly or indirectly into the final regulations-directly by copying the standard word for word; indirectly by making reference to the A-8 Standard, where compliance with that standard would meet the requirements of the regulation. The advantage of the latter method would be that the regulation would always be up-to-date and dynamic to meet the needs of safety and provide for new devices as they are invented or developed. In giving consideration to proposed Senate Bill No. 2525, we respectfully sug- gest that this Committee make haste slowly. We believe that in this area which is evidenced to be in a great state of flux, that precipitate action has proved costly in terms of time, ternpei~s and trouble. We would call your attention to a situation in Chicago reported in the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin of March 24, 1068. In that area, an ordinance forbidding discharge into Lake Michigan of effluent from waste treatment devices not complying with certain standards seems logical on the surface, but as noted in the article, a copy of which is appended, no standards have been set and no provision~s made for alternatives. A similar situation developed in the Province of Ontario where a similar law intending to require retention devices on pleasure craft was found to be unworkable since there were no shore-side facilities for relieving the contents of the holding tanks. We suggest as an alternative to S. 2525 serious and careful study of the actions already being taken by several of the states. Leading in this analysis and devel- opment are the states of New York, New Hampshire and Minnesota. Other states have pollution control laws in effect or are considering the same. It would seem that this Committee and/or the Federal Government in general could do this country a great service by helping to promote uniformity but allowing the detailed control and enforcement to be handled at the State level. The attention of the Committee is called to certain questions raised by Docu- ment No. 48, a report entitled, "Wastes from Watercraft." In this report a great many allegations are made and conclusions reached relative to pollution from recreational boats without any significant research being indicated on which to base these conclusions and allegations. For example, it is said that "pleasure craft . . . may suddenly impose a load of untreated wastes a flotilla of recreational watercraft . . . can easily contaminate shell fish beds . . ." No specific examples are given nor unfavorable experience reported. Great emphasis is put on the numbers of persons involved in recreational boat use, but no recogni- tion is given to the fact that this number of persons and this amount of usage is spread over thousands of miles of waterways in the United States. Because of this lack of concentration, we feel that the contamination due to recreational watercraft is considerably less significant than is indicated by all of the attention it has received. As a measure of the amount of contamination, reference is made to an article from Marine Technology, a publication of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, in its October, 1067, issue entitled "Sewage Pollution from River Tow Boats." Although the figures quoted have to do with tow boats on the major inland rivers, the number of persons involved both on a per boat basis and in total are comparable to those of recrea- tional craft. By determining the amount of sewage discharged per boat per day PAGENO="0576" 568 and then assuming that all 7,000 tow boats on the rivers were discharging an entire day's accumulation of sewage simultaneously itt Cincinnati, the dilution ratio would be one part to 8,578 parts under average river flow conditions. Quoting from this article, "it is quite obvious that the average amount of sewage discharged from a tow boat is relatively insignificant." The entire text of this article is appended hereto. Many yachtsmen, who incidentally are voters, feel that they are being unduly singled out for attention in this matter, while the major pollution sources- industries and municipalities-~are being ignored or given substantial reprieves. It is not our place to confirm or deny the accuracy of these statements. It is only to report this feeling to you. Further criticism of the statistical analysis used in Document No. 48 is con- tained in an editorial appearing in the Skipper magazine for December 1987. There is mentioned, for example, 40,000,000 persons using 8,000,000 watercraft or an average of 5 per boat. In another place where a detailed study is reported of 0,830 trips by boats, these carried 24,459 passengers, or an average of 3.59 persons per boat. The discrepancy is not explained. Further details and a treat- ment of this report in a generally light vein is found in this editorial, a copy of which is appended hereto. Also appended for your information is a copy of the manuscript of an article to appear soon in Boating Industry magazine entitled, "The Case of the Macerator-~hlorinator Devices for Sewage Treatment on Small Craft" by Gordon Crowell, Vice President of Raritan Engineering Company. The significant point of this article is its claim that the macerator-chiorinator can produce an effluent which is less polluted than the water being pumped into it to flush with-an effluent less polluted than the discharge of many municipal sewage treatment planta. May I thank you for giving consideration to these remarks. Please be assured that the American Boat and Yacht Council stands ready to assist you or any gov- ernmental body in the area of adequate safety standards to provide for the wel- fare of the boating public. HARPER H. HULL, President. Over forty-two million Americans take to our Nation's waterways each year. As the standard of living continues to rise individual leisure time becomes greater and proportionately more of our citizens have the opportunity to enjoy boating. By the year 2000, pleasure boating traffic in the United States will triple. In view of this rapid growth, some boatmen may know very little about water- craft or marine equipment and accordingly may accept safe design and con- struction of the boat and its components without much question. To ensure that the trust of the novice boatman is well founded, the Coast Guard has long supported the concept of a broad-based standards making body for the boating industry. With all interests fairly represented, the result is high quality standards developed in the best interest of the boating public. The American Boat and Yacht Council is such a broad-based standards making body. The recommendations of the Council developed by engineers, designers, manufacturers, surveyors, and marine insurers-represent the composite opinion of the industry. Technical personnel of the Coast Guard have cooperated extensively with the Council in the development of the marine standards contained in this publica- tion. This, we believe, is a significant effort which the boating industry is making for the protection of the American boating public. W. T. SMITH, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. PART A AMERICAN BOAT AND YACHT COUNCIL, INC., EQUIPMENT DIvISIoN PROJECT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. A-S-RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND STAND- ARDS COvERING SEWAGE HOLDING AND/OR TREATMENT DEVICES FOR MARINE ToI- LET WASTE INCLUDING THEIR INSTALLATION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Gordon Crowd, Chairman, Raritan Engineering Co. Henry Albing, Jr., Yacht Safety Bureau, Inc. Henry E. Burger, Burger Boat Co., Inc. PAGENO="0577" 569 Gordon Carison, Carlson & Son, Inc. Russell Eckloff, New Hampshire Water Pollution Comm. Herbert J. Erickson (alternate for Mr. Olson), General Dynamics/Quincy Div. Donald P. Frankel, La Mere Industries, Inc. Peter J. Gannon, Bureau of Navigation, N.J. Dept. of Conservation & Eco. De- velopment. Harper H. Hull, Trojan Boat Company. Charles E. Levitan, USCG Auxiliary. Frank Nokes, Wilcox-Critenden Div., North & Judd Mfg. Co. James O'Brien, N.Y. State Conservation Dept. Div. of Motor Boats. David Oliver, Capt., USCG, U.S. Coast Guard. Vernon A. Olson, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Alfred Peloquin, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. James Pfafflin, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Howard L. Potter, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. R. E. Reynolds, The Mathews Company. William Robinson, Yachting Magazine. Carl F. Sheppard, The Philadelphia Bulletin. Walter J. Sutcliffe, U.S. Power Squadrons. William Zimmerman, U.S. Power Squadrons. Initial Report-November 7, 1957. Approved by Division Director-November 18,1957. Approved by Coordinating Committee-February 10, 1958. Approved by Publications Committee-February 10, 1958. Adopted by Technical Board-September, 1964. First Revision-October 31, 1964. Second Revision-February 20, 1967. Third Revision-July 26, 1967. Fourth Revision-December 14, 1967. Fifth Revision-February 7, 1968 (draft). PART B-I RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND STANDARDS FOR RETENTION DEVICES 1. Scope Wherein recommended practices and standards are applied to devices designed to retain human wastes from marine toilets for ultimate disposal to receiv- ing tanks ashore, as may be required by appropriate regulatory agencies for pollution abatement. 2. Definitions a. Capacity.-Volumetric capacity of the retention tank, being a func~tion of the anticipated volume of waste and flush water. b. Deodorant.-A substance or process which masks or destroys offensive odors. *c. Disinfectant.-A substance or process which destroys infectious organisms. d. Holding tank.-A tank into which tcdlet wastes are discharged, and hav- ing no provision for discharge overboard to the water. 3. Deodorizing and/or disinfecting agent a. The deodorizing and/or disinfecting agent, when used, shall meet the fol- lowing conditions: (1) Be easily obtainable. (2) Constitute minimum hazard when handled or stored according to manufacturer's recommendation and form no dangerous gases nor react dangerously with other chemicals used for the same purpose. 4. Materials a. Materials used shall be such as to withstand the corrosive effects of the sewage, deodorizing and/or disinfecting agent, flush water and environment. b. Materials shall have chemical and/or galvanic compatibility. 5. Design a4id construction a. The device shall- (1) Be of ample strength for safe operation. (2) Prevent the escape of dangerous gases, obnoxious odors and liquids to the boat interior. 94-376 O-68----37 PAGENO="0578" 570 (3) Provide for ease of cleaning, ease of maintenance and ease of replen- ishment of deodorizing and/or disinfecting agent, when used. (4) Venting shall b.c to the free atmosphere, exterior to the boat's structure and of such a design as to preclude clogging. (5) Be of such design and construction that the danger of ignition of flam- mable vapor within or external to the unit will be prevented. (6) Use electrical components and connections complying with applicable standards of the American Boat and Yacht Council. (7) Be of such design and construction that, when properly installed, malfunc- tioning of its components will not endanger the boat in which it is installed by permitting water to enter the hull interior. (8) Provide no means for discharge of waste directly or indirectly to the water either deliberately or accidentally. (9) Be of such design and construction that shifting contents of the con- tainer will not endanger either the container or the boat. (10) Have adequate capacity for expected use. (11) The manufacturer shall specify the maximum angle of heel at which no spillage will occur from his device. b. It is recommended that a deck type fitting be used with the word "WASTE" conspicuously marked on the flange. The deck type fitting should have male threads not less than 1~/2 inches in dimeter with 111/2 threads per inch. The cap shall effect a seal. 6. Installation a. Installation of the device and its piping should allow ease of servicing and replenishment of any required deodorizing and/or disinfecting agent. b. The device shall be adequately secured independently of any connecting piping. c. All piping shall be sufficiently strong and durable to withstand any pres- sure that might be imposed on it by normal operation of the device. d. The interior of the piping or hose shall be as smooth as practicable so as to permit the free flow of sewage. e. Materials and piping shall meet the requirements of section 4. f. Subject to the foregoing, it is recommended that: (1) Boat designers and manufacturers, in planning toilet installations, pro- vide space adequate for the installation of an approved device. (2) The piping or hose connecting toilet to intake of device should be as short and direct as possible. (3) The retention device should be placed as low as practicable. (4) Means should be provided for determining the degree of fullness of the tank without opening the tank. PART B-IT RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND STANDARDS FOR RECIRC?ULATING DEVICES (Subcommittee: Gordon Crowell, Henry A. Albing, 1r., Fred Stone.) PAItT B-Ill RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL MACERATION DEVICES 1. Scope Wherein recommended practices and standards are applied to devices such as macerator-chemical treatment devices designed to treat human wastes discharged through marine toilets as may be required by appropriate regulatory agencies for pollution abatement. 2. Definitions a. Most Probable Number (MPN)-A statistical measure of the number of coliform orga~nisms present and indicative of the degree of pollution from human sources. b. Septic Action-The biological decomposition of organic matter in the absence of dissolved oxygen, and accompanied by the production of offensive odors. 3. Effluent requirements a. A sewage treatment device for marine toilets shall discharge an effluent meeting the following minimum standards: - PAGENO="0579" 571 (1) Free of unslightly solids. (2) Having a Most Probable Number (MPN) of coliform organisms no greater than 240 per one hundred milliliters (ml). 4. Disinfecting agent The disinfecting agent, if used, shall meet the following conditions: a. Be easily obtainable. b. Constitute minimum hazard when handled or stored according to manu- facturers recommendations and form no dangerous gases. 5. Materials a. Materials shall be such as to withstand the corrosive effects of the sewage, the disinfecting agent, the flush water and the environment. b. Materials shall have chemical and/or galvanic compatibility. 6. Design and construction a. The device shall- (1) Be of ample strength for safe operation. (2) Be of a type that does not depend on septic action as part of its treatment. (3) Prevent the escape of dangerous gases, olmoxious odors and liquids to boat interior. (4) Provide for ease of maintenance, and ease of replenishment of the disinfecting agent. (5) Function automatically with the operation of the marine toilet(s). (0) Be of such design and construction that the danger of ignition of flammable vapor within or external to the unit will be prevented. (7) Use electrical components and connections complying with applicable standards of the American Boat and Yacht Council. (8) Be of such design and construction that, when properly installed functioning or malfunctioning of its components will not endanger the boat in which it is installed. (9) The manufacturer shall specify the maximum angle of heel at which no spillage will occur from his device. b. The manufacturer shall provide adequate means for preventing abnormal pressure build-up. 7. Installation a. Installation of the device and its piping should allow ease of both servicing and replenishment of the disinfecting agent. b. The device shall be adequately secured independently of any connecting piping. c. All piping shall be sufficiently strong and durable to withstand any pressure and temperature that might be imposed on it by normal operation of the device. (1) The interior of the piping or hose shall be as smooth as practicable so as to permit the free flow of sewage. d. Materials of the connecting piping shall meet the requirements of sec- tion 5. e. Subject to the foregoing, it is recommended that: 1. Boat designers and manufacturers, in planning toilet installations, pro- vide a space adequate for the installation of an approved device. 2. The piping or hose connecting toilet to intake of device should be as short and direct as possible. ~. The device should be placed as low as practicable. PART B-TV RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND STANDARDS FOR INCINERATING DEVICES (Subcommittee: Donald F. Frankel and Henry W. Albing, Jr.) PART C-MAJOR REASONS FOR PROPOSALS MADE IN PART B I. Manufacturers of retention devices should arrive at a standard coupling device for both boat and dock-side facilities. The coupling device should permit quick and easy attachment without tools and should also be of such design and construction to minimize the possibility of spi1lage~ The A-8 Committee added PAGENO="0580" *572 Section 5.b. to Part B-I, because they considered a dimension recommendation to be of vital importance. II. The Technical Committee of Project A-8 recognizes that because of the rapid rate of technological progress, many new concepts will appear in the near future. To mention a few possibilities in which there may be satisfactory solu- tions to the pollution problems, the Committee has considered ultra-sonics, pas- turization, chemical heat and others. It is the intent of the foregoing Recommended Practices and Standards that they be worded so as to not favor any particular concept and that they in no way preclude the development of new and better designs. Briefly stated, new devices shall either withhold all effluent from overboard discharge or harmlessly exhaust it into the surrounding atmosphere or water. Where heat and/or electricity is involved in the treatment process, the basic requirements as already defined by existing American Boat and Yacht Council and National Fire Protection Asso- ciation Standards shall be adhered to. Inasmuch as the A-8 Committee is a permanent one, the Committee will be reconvened whenever it appears that due to new developmenta, existing criteria must be revised. PART D STATEMENT OF VOTE OF PROJECT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Vote to be taken at a later date. [The Sunday Bulletin, Philadelphia, Mar. 24, 19681 BETTER BOATING-BOATMEN FACE HEAD PROBLEM IN CHICAGO (By Carl F. Sheppard) CHICAGO.-"Off with their heads," screamed the Queen of Hearts as she rushed from city hall. She'd just learned thrat Lake Michigan was polluted, `and she hadn't waited to find out by whom. However, the mad hatter must have mentioned sailors. Which is why you may see something new along Chicago's shoreline shortly- beheaded boats. Yachtsmen fighting a rearguard action against the real-life Lewis Carroll ordinance haven't been making much headway. The ordinance forbids the discharge into the lake of effluents from waste treat- ment devices such as marine chiorinators which are not approved by the port director as complying with standards `set by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board. The Board says it's not setting standards as yet. Which leaves holding tanks. Not so curiously, everywhere we looked in the huge Chicago National Boh± Travel and Outdoors Show which just closed here, holding tanks were on dis- play. There was only one chlorinating unit, all right to use on boats on the other side of the lake in Ontario. SEVERAL HEADACHES Holding tanks were introduced on the east coast several years ago, but since then have bowed to chlorinators. Holding tanks have to be pumped out frequently by special dockside facilities, something the Queen of Hearts hasn't bothered to provide here. Where facilities do exist, some of them pump the holding tank contents into drains that pour it right back into the water. Also holding tanks don't work at the angle of heel assumed by sailboats, and Chicago is a Great Lakes sailing center. As one motor sailer skipper put it, he'd have to drop his sails, put over the anchor, dash below, dash black, hike the hook and get underway again every time nature called. But does the Queen of Hearts care? Let them straighten up and sail straight, she says, or get off the lake. The lake has indeed, been getting soupy, what with every municipality pouring in rivers of sewage, hundreds of mills and factories doing ditto, the Army Engi- neering dredging up polluted bottom fill and tossing it around, and heavy shipping thickening the broth, day in, day out, year round. YACHTSMEN SCAPEGOATS The Queen of Hearts is reluctant to tackle these big barons, however, possibly remembering what happened to King John. She's given the barons time exten- PAGENO="0581" 573 sions, meanwhile proving herself a champion of purity by demanding immediate compliance from several thousand local boats which might be used a couple of days a week on the average during the short season. Even though they don't contribute a measurable amount of pollution, the public need not know that. And let's forget the pollution check last December which showed the lake was worse than ever long after the last boats had departed. The frustration of local yachtsmen, who seem to have become the latest politi- cal pawn in the great pollution game, came out at the March meeting of the National Boating Federation at the Chicago Yacht Club. The NBF, the national association of state and regional amateur boating organizations, reaffirmed its 1967 statement opposing operator licensing, then went on to add by unanimous vote: "The NBF further urges that no legislative or administrative action be taken that would force upOn the boating public toilet devices which have not been proved practical in marine use or which do not conform to the safety and per- formance standards of the American Boat and Yacht Council and the National Sanitation Foundation." SINGLE STANDARD DUE The ABYC, technical society of the boating industry, has been developing standards for marine waste treatment devices for many years. The NSF recently got into the act, and is ready to publish a slightly different standard. A joint com- mittee is meeting April 4 to try to come up with a single standard which will be recognized nationwide. Meanwhile, some unhappy skippers may switch to cruising the highway in the streamlined land yachts, a nice selection of which were on view at the show in the International Amphitheater. Some are trailered, some ride piggy-back, and one of the most elaborate family homes on wheels, was a Dodge bus so new no brochure accompanied the long, sleek machine. The price equipped was about $15,000. Or, for temporary escape from the heartless queen, a skipper could fly to the Land of the Midnight Sun to wrestle rare Arctic char and 40-pound trout, as urged by one ofthe wilderness fishing exhibitors at the show. We'd even settle for a 40-pound trout nearer home in Great Slave Lake. SEWAGE PoIJ~uTIoN FROM RIvnR TOWBOATS By Harold I. Kurtz1 This paper discusses the fundamentals of sewage treatment as applicable to watercraft, particularly towboats and tugs. The initial discussion deals with the composition of sewage and the procedures by which its effect on the receiving body of water are measured. Municipal methods of treatment are discussed because these have been the "tried and proven." Since the attempts to adapt municipal methods to the requirements of watercraft have resulted in a very limited degree of success, the author tries to show the im- practicability of using this approach and substitutes a method which fulfills the necessary requirements. Very few problems in connection with the operation of towboats have caused as much discussion and speculation as the enforcement of some govermnental regulation which would require the installation and operation of sewage-treat- ment facilities on river boats. Maintenance of the equipment can be a problem because men are reluctant to work with it, particularly if a tank must be emptied or a pump disassembled, or anything whereby they must physically come in contact with the sewage. As a result, the "human factor" becomes very impor- tant in securing the cooperation of the crew in the successful operation of any sewage-treatment facility. It is therefore important that the treatment process be fully automatic, or at least require a very minimum of attention. 1 Vice President, Operations, Thomas Petroleum Transit, Incorporated, Butler, Pa. Presented at the October 7, 1966 Meeting of the Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. PAGENO="0582" 574. SEWAGE COMPOSITION Sewage is composed of the liquid and solid wastes from the human, or animal, body. Because water is used as a carrier, the total solids content would be approx- imately 0.2 lb person per day, of which 0.1 lb would be suspended or undissolved, and 0.1 lb would be dissolved solids. The biochemical oxygen demand, commonly referred to as "BOD," is defined as being the amount of oxygen required to stabilize or oxidize the sewage within a given period of time and at a specific temperature. This is usually five days and 20 C (68 F) respectively. The amount of BOD per person per day would be approximately 0.17 lb. The body wastes, or excreta, are almost 100 percent organic matter, because they are the residue of the food we eat after the body has extracted its nutrients. Our food is made up of animal and vegetable tissues. These tissues are highly complex organic substances. By organic, we mean that the atomic composition is basically carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, which form the carbohydrates. With the addition or substitution of nitrogen, the pro- teins are formed. In order for the body to obtain nutrition, these complex com- pounds must be broken down Into simple substances that the body can absorri through the various membranes that make up the intestinal tract, thence into the blood stream and to the muscular and other body tissues. As the tissues use these nutrients, or fuel, in the production of energy, waste products are formed and carried away from the tissues by the blood stream, and discharged via the excretory system. The human, or animal, body might be described as a very complex chemical refinery and filtration plant. The raw materials are broken down by chemical reactions catalyzed by bacteria and enzymatic action; and by selective filtration, the substances are absorbed by the tissue, where partial oxida- tion is accomplished to fulfill the needs of the tissue. The surplus and residue is either stored or cast off. That which is cast off is ultimately the sewage which we find so obnoxious and a problem of disposal. The decomposition of food in the digestive process is not complete. Consequently, the body excreta L's composed of organic matter in various stages of decomposition together with enzymes and masses of bacteria common to the intestinal tract, called Bacterium Coli. Since the excreta is of such composition, it is very unstable chemically. As a result, the substances will readily combine with oxygen or other oxidizing agents. The BOD test measures the amount of the waste present in water by simply putting a measured portion of sewage in a measured volume of air-saturated water, and incubating for five days at 20 C. The oxygen content of the mixture is determined before and after the incubation period. From the depletion of the oxygen content, the biochemical oxygen demand is calculated. MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS In municipal sewage-treatment plants, the sewage enters the plant from the sewers. After passing through the bar screens which remove large foreign items that would damage or clog the pumps, the sewage is pumped through the primary sedimentation tanks, where the coarse solids settle out. The retention period in these tanks is approximately two hours. The solids are collected and pumped to digesters, or tanks, where bacterial decomposition reduces the solids to inert material which can be dried and used for soil conditioners. In the decomposition process, liquefaction and gasification takes place. The gas is collected and used to produce heat and power. It has a high methane con- tent and a Btu value as much as 900 to 1000 per cubic foot; the average is 650 to 700. The population equivalent is approximately one cubic foot of gas per person per day. Going back to the primary sedimentation tank, the liquid, or effluent, contain- ing dissolved and suspended solids is pumped to the secondary treatment. This phase is the oxidation stage, which is accomplished by either biological filtra- tion or a bioaeration process, called activated sludge. In the former, the sewage is sprayed on a rock bed in which the rocks are covered with a gelatinous mass of bacteria. Within the strata of the filter, both plant and animal life thrives. Herein, carbohydrates and proteins are reduced to simple carbonaceous and nitrog- enous compounds which are oxidized in stages by bacterial action. For exam- ple, the proteins are reduced to ammonia by one type of bacteria. Another type oxidizes the ammonia to nitrites. The third type oxidizes the nitrites to nitrates, which are stable. The efficiency of the filter is determined by a BOD test on the influent and effluent, as well as a chemical analysis of the ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate content of the effluent. PAGENO="0583" 575 In the second method, activated sludge, the effluent from the primary tanks is mixed with a culture of organisms and then flows into aeration tanks, where the retention time is approximately six hours. The liquid is profusely aerated and agitated with compressed air. Instead of the bacterial growth clinging to a rock media and the water percolating through, as in the filtration process, the bacterial masses dispersed in the liquid grow rapidly and act as a coagulent for entraining the suspended solids. The same carbonaceous and nitrogenous cycles of reduction and oxidation take place here as in the filtration process. The final stage of treatment is running the effluent from the filters or acti- vated-sludge units through a final sedimentation tank to remove the settleable solids resulting from the previous processes. The effluent from this tank is chlorinated and discharged into the river or waterways. It is very apparent that the processes of sewage treatment are basically bac- teriological. Bacteria are specific. By that is meant that each type of bacteria has a specific function. For example, the various types of that break down protein to ammonia do nothing else. Other types are required to oxidize the ammonia to nitrites, and types entirely different from either of the two' previously men- tioned are required to oxidize the nitrites to nitrates. The same is true of the breakdown of the carbohydrates, and the subsequent oxidation of the carbo- naceous compounds. In other words, each step in the biochemical process is caused by a specific type of organism. All microscopic organisms have their own limited range of environmental conditions under which they can thrive. When these conditions are not maintained, they either die or form spores, which are a dormant form. Fortunately, the undesirable, or disease-producing, bacteria are generally non-spore-forming bacteria and are easily killed when their en- vironmental limitations are exceeded. The two principle environmental factors are temperature and chemical. Bac- teria that thrive best at 80 F are retarded at 60 F or 100 F. Those that thrive best at body temperature, 98.6 F, are grossly retarded at ±10 deg, for example. They can, however, tolerate cold temperatures better than hot. The story is about the same in a chemical environment. No bacteria can thrive in a strong acid or caustic environment. Most of them thrive best where the acidity, or alkalinity, is near the neutral point. Those that thrive best at a pH of 7.2 are retarded at a pH of 6.8, and vice versa. Considerable retardation of bacterial growth occurs at pH's of 6.6 and 7.6. A knowledge of the optimum pH range for the organisms being used is very important, because it provides the plant operator with an additional control parameter which may affect peak ef- ficiency. The plant's efficiency is determined solely by maintaining the best possible conditions for growth, of the organisms performing the treatment proc- esses. Laboratory testing and control is necessary to attain this result. Bac- teria can be killed in minutes, but it requires days and possibly weeks to restore the growth in the filters and aeration units. With this basic background, let us try to apply it to the treatment of sewage on the average towboat. TOWBOAT SEWAGE TREATMENT Statistics indicate that the total number of people on boats on the inland waterways at any given time is approximately 55,000, with an average of eight per boat. The average amount of sewage is estimated at 30 gal. per person per day. This might be as high as 50 in some isolated instances, so, for the purpose of discussions let us use 40 gal per day per person. Total flow per day, 8 x 40=320 gal per boat 320 gai x 8.34= 2669 lb per boat BOD=8 x 0.25=2.0 lb per boat Solids=8 x 0.2=1.6 lb per boat The average flow of the Ohio River at Cincinnati is 32,000 cfs, or 14.4 million gpm. The minimum is 6000 cfs, or 2.7 million gpm. At 2.7 million gpm, the dilution ratio is approximately 1 :8450 if the entire 320 gal were pumped overboard within a minute. The BOD dilution ratio would be 1 :11,259,000 (2 lb BOD/22,518,000 of water). If we assembled all 7000 boats on the inland waterways at Cincin- nati, and they all discharged the daily accumulation of sewage simultaneously, 14,000 lb of BOlD would represent a dilution ratio (based on the minimum river flow of 2,700,000 gal or 22,518,000 lb per minute) of 1 :1608; under average flow conditions of 14,400,000 gpm, or 120,096,000 lb of water, it would be 1 :8578. It PAGENO="0584" 576 is quite obvious that the average amount of sewage discharged from a towboat is relatively insignificant. We should then look for other objectionable factors, namely, the aesthetic and the hazards to health. The aesthetic factor can be taken care of by triturating the solids to very fine particles which, if they float, would not be visually identifiable. The health hazard can be eliminated by ster- ilization. This reduces the treatment requirement to trituration and sterilization. STERILIZATION Chemical sterilization has several problems: (1) Cost; (2) Storage of chemi- cals; (3) Handling of chemicals; (4) Applying the corr~ct dosages; (5) Pro- vision for and maintaining adequate contact time for the bactericide to penetrate the solid particles in order to kill the disease or pathogenic bacteria contained therein; (6) The selection of a bactericide that will not have a residual toxicity to marine life. The most common chemicals used for this purpose are hypochlorite solutions. Even though a strong chlorine residual is maintained throughout the entire contact period, solid particles may not be penetrated sufficiently to kill the bacteria in the core of the particle. Therefore, virile pathogenic bacteria can still be present in heavily chlorinated sewage. If the effluent shows the presence of any Bacterium Coli, then it can be assumed that pathogenic bacteria can also be present. The most effective bactericide for this application is heat. In the pasteurization of milk, the milk is heated to 140 F and the temperature held for 30 mm. The same could well apply to sewage. However, it would be advisable to provide a tank capacity for a minimum of 24 hr to avoid the necessity for discharging while the boat is standing idle. Such a contact period at a minimum of 140 F would be more than sufficient to kill any pathogenic bacteria. The treatment plant would consist of a sump tank coiled to heat the sewage almost instantaneously, a pump, triturator, collection tank coiled in order to hold the temperature, and a discharge pump. The source of heat could be the engine and exhaust-manifold cooling water. Ilypochlorite should be carried on the boat and applied to the system when the boat is standing idle and a source of heat is not available. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS By briefly considering the physical, chemical, and bacteriological character- istics of sewage, the writer has attempted to arrive at a logical and practical solution to the problem of disposing of sewage from towboa;ts that would prevent any objectionable pollution to the rivers and also prevent any jeopardy to the health of humans and marine life. It is the writer's sincere belief that any study of the facts surrounding the degree of pollution that towboats cause with respect to the discharge of human excreta will substantiate the foregoing dissertation. [From December 1967 issue of the Skipper] FLOTSAM & JETSAM It may have been a mistake to drop that copy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's recent report on "Wastes from Watercraft" on The Skipper's desk, but we did. We had hopes that, with the federal government's monies and resources, perhaps a little sanity would enter the question of water- craft pollution to allay the over-charged emotionalism `that has blossomed around it. But from the welling of thumps, snorts, and imprecations that emanated from his sanctorum-enough to rattle the overhead and shake the concrete slab on which we live-we gathered that the report left something to be desired, so we weren't surprised when the copy was returned looking a little like the backsides of a bird-shotted corn poacher. The Skipper has one of those nylon-tipped, red ink pens that he particularly favors, and there were very few of the sixty-two pages in "Senate Document No. 48" that hadn't been underlined, circled, exclaina- tion pointed, or loaded with virulent commentary. After leafing through the bespattered pages, it seemed to us that The Skipper's scathing conclusion, which he had scrawled across the cover, was somewhat justified. Said he: PAGENO="0585" 577 "They musta spent their money hiring two four-headed kids to knock together all the old bum dope for this. Doubt if any of those heads ever looked at any more water than was in the whisky glass. Can't find any indication of any origi- nal research at all. Can't find much sense in the conclusions. Can find plenty of contradictions. If this is the `full and complete investigation' Congress ordered, God save us." It was obvious that The Skipper had read the document with even more than his usual care and we were somewhat more than amused by some of his com- ments. In one case the report notes that of present anti-pollution devices, the highly efficient incinerator type was deemed too dangerous, the macera:tion- disinfection gadgets were not effective, and holding tanks were most effective and "adaptable to all sizes and types of vessels"; though elsewhere it observed that the tanks were `~relatively large and heavy" and would be "difficult to install in existing larger craft." Just how all that fitted together logically, brought a note from The Skipper that succinctly pointed out: "This oughta give a couple of those heads head- aches." Even more headachy were some of the report's "statistics" which blithely jumped from one source to another to pick up whatever figure seemed to be, obvi- ously, the most impressive.~ For instance, the report mentions at length the industry estimates of eight million boats and forty million people using them, or five to a boat straight across the board. Yet in another paragraph in the report, it cites a detailed, but anony- mous, study of some 6,830 voyages out of an unspecified marina in boats larger than fifteen feet which carried a total of 24,459 passengers, or an average of 3.59 passengers. But its analysis of current boat census figures is even more confusing when the report makes an attempt to determine the number of craft equipped with heads. Here it shamefully intermixes Coast Guard registration figures and in- dustry estimates which for years have been about one hundred percent apart (the Coast Guard counts a little over four million boats registered; the industry estimates eight million registered and unregistered). The report studies industry figures `and estimates that ninety percent of in- board and inboard-outboard equipped craft carry heads. Then it estimates that eighty percent of the 361,000 outboard beats eold from 1959 to 1966 also are ao equipped and fifty percent of "stilboats", though in another part this classifi- cation includes only unpowered sailboats, mostly of the clatss racing types. Opposite that was The Skipper's note: "So all Lightnings carry thundermugs?" Then the report goes on to analyze the Coast Guard counts a's substantiatin.g "correlation" which we gather to mean proof. It lists eighty percent of the Coast Guard count of 1,291,000 boats above sixteen feet a's equipped with heads, a highly questionable conclusion to say the least. But then, to reach the 1,300,000 heads estimated from industry figures, they properly add the twelve thousand documented yachts, and improperly throw in the industry estimate of half the class sailboats to bring the two figures into shooting range. The Skipper scrawled across this bit of statistical legerdemain the simple statement: "I'll be damned." But a couple of the report's conclusions had obviously `been the cause of the loudest imprecations that had flowed from the sanctorum. The offending sentences had been underlined, circled, and squared in notably heavier lines which indicated .The Skipper had really borne down on his tortured pen. One of them, noting the present imperfections of anti-pollution equipment commented: ". . . but the desire for Utopia should not be allowed to becloud and confuse the need for action today. Immediate requirements demand that existing technologies and devices be used to effect a realistic degree of water pollution from watercraft." The Skipper had noted: "Even `if `they don't `work?" and had labelled the whole thing with a scathing "sophomoric." But there was still another sentence that brought The Skipper to an unprint- able boil, particularly since he is one who recognizes pollution as one of the major current sociopolitical problems, and has long maintained that all efforts should be concentrated on the principal elements of the problem, rather than being dissipated in attacks on the minor "fringe areas." The sentence read: "Unless we control w'atercraft waste discharges, the full benefits from other pollution control investments will not be fully realized." PAGENO="0586" 578 Emending the suphuric prose, the gist of The Skipper's observation on that statement was that the money expended on the "study" would have been a thousand times more useful if it had been applied to the core of the pollution pro'blem. We had to agree, but elsewhere in his comments we found this little gem that seemed to put the whole thing in perspective. Wrote The Skipper: "Out of a nation of birds watchers and girl watchei~s, they think they're going to make a nation of head watchers?" A nine-month research project in the Amazon Basin is due to end this month when the ship Alpha Helia, a 133-foot, 300-ton vessel with more than half a million dollars worth of scientific equipment aboard, returns to La Jolla, California. The expedition was directed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and supported by a six hundred thousand dollar grant from the National Science Foundation. Biologists, physiologists, biochemists, ecologists and physicians from universities in Brazil, Norway, France, Britain, West Germany, Canada, Japan, as well as this country, participated. Among the discoveries so far reported: from underwater recordings, a zoologist discovered that a species of fresh-water dolphin makes noises like those of a sperm whale. Clear barks and yelps were heard. Previously, it was thought that fresh-water dolphins were silent as opposed to the highly articulate salt-water dolphin. A German scientist, Dr. Hubert Marki of the University of Frankfurt, experimented with the dreaded piranha to discover what causes them to attack. A report we read stated that Dr. Markl used "plastic models of both smaller and larger river creatures" and that from his experiments the doctor concluded that "piranhas hesitated to atack anything larger than themselves and that the scent of blood was only a minor stimulus." It all left us wondering if blood smeared on a plastic model just didn't have the same appeal as the blood of a newly killed animal we once saw devoured in a matter of minutes by a school of piranhas. Pleione, 72-feet of fine lines and honest craftsmanship was filled with fifty-two thOusand pounds of concrete and sunk into a three hundred foot hole near the eastern end of Fishers Island, New York, to sadden those who watched and many who didn't. She was a New York Fifty, one of nine such yachts built fifty-four years ago for big boat one-design racing from the designs of Nathanael Herre- shoff. She was one of the last of the great racing schooners. She was sunk on the orders of her owner, the late Joseph V. Santry of Marble- head, Massachusetts. Code flags signalling BonY Voyage fluttered from the rigging of another old schooner, the Brilliant, which stood by. A wreath was floated over the spreading ripples by Waldo C. M. Johnston, director of the Marine Historical Associa- tion's Mystic Seaport at Mystic, Connecticut, where the lovely old girl had spent her last seven years on display. "Mr. Santry did not want her to fall into other hands," Johnston said. "His wishes were that she be given a sailor's burial, her Valhalla. His widow wanted us to carry out those wishes. It was the love of a great sailor for a great ship." Alice Springs, a town almost in the heart of Australia's great desert outback, was not to be outdone by Newport, Rhode Island. Almost one thousand miles from the sea, and in an area where water is one of the `scarcest commodities, Alice decided to run its own "Australia's Cup" in the bed of the dry Todd River. In fact, the annual madcap `regatta attracted a record crowd of some six thousand people for "rowing" and "sailing" events decided by crews in bottomless boats running a course in the sandy river bed. The "Australia's Cup" for twelv&square meter "yachts" drew two entrants: Sir Bob (Sir Robeet Menzies, farmer Australian P'rime Minister, is the husband of Dame I~attie Meiizies, for whom the 1967 Australian America's Cup ch;ailenge'r was named) and Insipid for which no explanation is necessary. Accountably perhaps, there was no entry named Damn Pity. Insipid was menned by an all-American crew drawn from personnel building `a nearby space research station and took the honors of the day, and immediately called for `a succession of lay days, to which the Auturalian crew unhesitatingly agreed. Apparently, the river bed was the only thing that was dry for two outdoor hairs sold more than two thousand twenty-six ounce bottles of beer `on that day. PAGENO="0587" 579 THE CASE FOR THE MACERATOR-CHLORINATOR DEVICES FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT ON SMALL CRAFT To the landlubber and those others who are unfamiliar with all aspects of the problem `of human waste disposal on small craft, it seems obvious that there can be no argument to the `statement that holding tank's `and recirculating types of toilets are the logical `and fool-proof solution to water pollution caused by boats. T'he promoters of these devices have been most effective `in `selling their concept which, boiled down, is simply this-"no effluent, no pollution." So convincingly has this `theory been exploited th'at some legislators have even gone to the absurd lengths of advocating that holding tanks for bilge water be required, and that' `all craft regardless `of `size (even canoes) have provision for boilet facilities that would assure that all wastes would be properly disposed of ashore. However, when foolish laws `of m'an `are at cross purposes with the laws of nature, there can be no doubt as `to which laws will prevail. So let us concede that "no effluent-no pollution" is axiomatic. Now, just so we all `speak the same `l'anguage, let us say that throughout this presentation the phrase "holding tank" shall mean any device, including `recirculating toilets, whose contents `are retained aboard `a boat for disposal in a legal manner ashore. A few `of the fallacies of the `holding `tank concept are as fol'lowis: The smaller the boat, the greater i's the problem for available space. On craft that are barely large enough `to accommodate .a marine toilet, there simply is no room for a hold- ing tank of `any meaningful dimensions. Each flushing of a marine head rrequlres about three quarts of water. Translate that into the capacity that would be required for `a tank to hold all the `discharge for even a week-end's outing for a couple with two children! In new boats thi's `could possibly be provided, but how can thi's space be found on th'e hundreds of thousands of boats `already built? Many many more people enjoy small boats than are aboard large yachts where space is not so tight. As a matter of fact, the number of passengers per boat does not vary in proportion to the size of the boat. And, of course, boats in the 20-25 foot category out number those 35 to 45 feet long many `times. It would be easier to find space for a 50 gallon tank on a forty footer than a ten gallon tank on a twenty-two footer. And you are likely to find the same number of people on both! Now, let us suppose that we do have a holding tank on our boat. Wh'ere can it be `pumped `out? There are virtually no pumping stations in existence. Ac- cording to a survey made in the Province of Ontario only two marina operators out of 282 said they would be willing to install pumping stations on their premises. T'he reasons? Pumpi'ng `station's `are costly to install, a nuisance to operate, and a source of irritation to both client and proprietor. Marina owners are, frankly, loath to get into the cesspool business. Furthermore, they ask, what are we going to do with the sewage `after we pump it out? Most marinas are beyond municipal sewer systems, an'd if their own toilets do not flush directly into the marina waters, they have only septic tanks that would quickly become over loaded. Then, what can they do? Cart it off in tank trucks? To where? The nearest municipal sewer? Will the municipality let them? And does the municipal- ity have a `sewage `ttoatment plant `or do they also dump? Marina `operators also fear to invest money required for pump-out facilities due to the high cost (estimated variously at about $3000 per station), and the very likely early obsolescence due to the very rapid improvements that are being made in treatment devices. They also recognize that any law that i's so difficult of compliance and enforcement as to invite wholesale evasion will sooner or later be changed. Remember Prohibition? Another problem: A's of no'w there is no such thing as a universally accepted deck fitting to standardize pump-out facilities. Holding tanks can in themselves become wholesale breeders of bacteria. Provi- sion will have to be made to prevent the formation of dangerous `and explosive gases generated by bacterial putrefaction action on organic matter. How can you empty a `tank Completely? Tanks will have to be vented and ventilated to permit gases (meth'ane and hydrogen-sulphide) to escape harmlessly. And what about the odor? In the laboratory, hydrogen-sulphide is known as the rotten egg~ odor! You figure that one out. - It is a fact that holding tanks are widely used in aircraft. But the longest air- plane flight rarely exceeds eight hours and the toilets are serviced every time the plane touches down. But you cannot take a modification of an `airplane unit PAGENO="0588" 580 and expect it to operate on a boat for a week at a time, under the hot sun when the boat is closed up during the week and where the number of flushes will far outnumber the very moderate usage aboard a plane and expect the same results. Remember, too, the airlines have long since provided full facilities for handling this distasteful task along with the many other routine services modern planes require. To sum it all up, unless it is the desire of legislators to legislate boating completely out of business, except for the largest luxury yachts where space and money are no objects, the entire holding tank concept is just not feasible. Here too, on the largest yachts where self contained electrical power is almost unlimited, the incinerator type of toilet would meet the requirements of "no effluent-no pollution" provided the odor and ash problem can also be met. The macerator-chlorintator type of device meets not only the small boat's prob- lem, but the largest as well. The newest types have consistently demonstrated that they can reduce the bacteria content of sewage from countless billions in untreated sewage to zero to twenty coliform per 100 ml. (milliliters). Most health agencies state that 240 to 1000 coliform per 100 ml. is acceptahle and most municipalities deem that a 5000 count is safe for swimming. In short, a well designed macerator-chlorinator is capable of producing an effluent that is less polluted than the water being pumped in to flush with, i.e. the water the boat is floating in. To achieve this decontamination, sewage must be maccrated so that no single particle is larger than 1/32". This means that to assure that this size is at- tained, the effluent must be ground even finer. Actually, nothing would be recognizable. Paper is reduced to individual fibers shorter than 1/32". The color is bleached by the chlorine to nearly white. Much has been said regarding the nutrients remaining, namely phosphates and nitrates. B.O.D. (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) has also erroneously been attributed to macerator-chiorina- tors. BOD is exerted when micro organisms in the receiving water decompose the waste material. In carrying out life processes the micro organisms utilize the oxygen resources of the water. There will be no nitrates or phosphates in the effluent that were not present in the water being pumped in to flush with. The main source of phosphates is that they are used as builders in detergents, and nitrates stem mainly from run-off from fields where they are used as agricul- tural fertilizers. It appears that a certain critical nitrate nitrogen to phosphate phosphorious ratio of about 1 to 15 is necessary to produce algae blooms. A macerator-chlorinator would not aggregate this condition. Because chlorine is also an algaecide, how can algae thrive where the effluent must have an excess of residual active chlorine to be a bacteriocide? We should therefore conclude that in as much as the macerator-chlorinator can do a much better job than the primary municipal sewage plant, there is no sense in delivering its effluent to a pumping station where it may be de- posited in sewage lines and after municipal treatment be returned to the lakes more polluted than when it left the boat. As required by the NSF and also the ABYC standards, adequate "fail-safe" provisions must be incorporated into de- contaminating devices so that they will not flush if they are not operating prop- erly. It would really be much easier to "cheat" on a holding-tank! STATEMENT BY E. S. TERWILLIGER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, YACHT SAFETY BUREAU, INC. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is an appreciated privilege to present this statement on the activities of the Yacht Safety Bureau, with particular reference to water pollution control devices for use aboard boats. For your understanding of those activities, it is important that you know what the Bureau is, what it dOes, and how it operates. For that, as well as brevity hereifl. a copy of a descriptive pamphlet, entitled "Testing for Safety Afloat" is attached as a part of this statement. The paragraphs in quotation marks on Pages 1 and 2 of the pamphlet com- prise the Bureau's complete Certificate of Incorporation. In few words, that charter defines the Bureau's program, stresses devotion to the public interest, emphasizes the marine environment, confines program scope to the product phase of marine safety, and sets forth the basic process for implementing the program. Further procedural guidance stems from a 19G3 ruling of the Inter- nal Revenue Service exempting the Bureau from Federal taxes as an organiza- PAGENO="0589" 581 tion operated exclusively for "testing for public safety" as described in Section ~5O1 (c) (3) of the IRS code. The purpose of the imposed procedural guidelines is to make certain the Bureau's product evaluation services are in the public interest and fair to all. The IRS ruling was in part premised on the condition no part of Bureau operation was devoted to carrying on propaganda. Specifically related to that restraint is the avoidance of any attempt to influence legislation. To live com- pletely with the spirit and word of that restraint the Bureau has not and does not express opinions on what product safety matters should or should not be regulated. However, I want to equally stress that, for such product safety mat- ters as are now, or may be, the subject of regulations, the Bureau's evaluation operations can, and it is hoped they will, aid authorities charged with their administration. The essence of Bureau operation is provision of an independent, uniform, reliable, and impartial marine product safety evaluation and certification service for the boating field. This is ensured by careful adherence to the procedural guidelines, plus keying evaluations to illustrate compliance with: 1. The advisory safety standards established by organizations like the Ameri- can Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) and the National Fire Protection Associa- tion (NFPA) in which all interested parties may participate; or 2. Applicable government regulations. It is worth stating that the organizational separation of advisory safety standard development and safety evaluation voids any aspect of "self-certi- fication". The foregoing fixes the Bureau position with respect to regulations that may be established to control pollution from pleasure boats. The Bureau can, as a "testing for public safety" organization, develop and accomplish testing proce- dures that illustrate capability of devices or systems to comply with estab- lished objectives. This is the area of considerable past and current Bureau activity. The ABYC was formally organized in 1954 for the single purpose of developing advisory safety standards for physical features of boats and their equipment through procedures permitting all interests concerned to participate. I was active in its formation and privileged to serve as its administrator until 1962. In 1967, under the impulse of several annual conferences jointly sponsored by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and the Na- tional Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers, the ABYC was asked to develop "recommecled practices and standards for sewage treatment devices for marine toilet waste, including their installation". That request was accepted. A committee blending industry, governmental, and professional participation was formed. The committee developed a proposal in time for the January 1959 joint conference. The proposal was commended by that conference and later in the same year adopted by the ABYC as an advisory standard. It was amended, in 1961, to include a recommended space allowance for installation of the devices abroad boats. A copy of that standard is attached, and a perusal will reveal: 1. It refers only to devices designed to treat human waste by the macera- tion-disinfection method to permit overboard discharge. 2. It states effluent and safety requirements in terms of objectives to be attained. At the time the development `of this standard was undertaken, only one device of the type was available to the best of my knowledge. The manufacturer had been working with the biology department of Wesleynn University and the Water Pollution Commission of the State `of New Hampshire. Sanitary engineers of that oom~nission undertook effluent testing of devices to help implement a state regulation prohibiting toilets aboard boats unless equipped with an approved `sewage treatment device. The effective date of that regulation was originally set for the boating season of 1959, and I believe was a first. During this period, various states were considering regulations to control pollution from boats. The ABYC standard provided guidance for them as well a's for several manufacturers inter~sted in developing devices of the type. I should mention `that while retention tanks were considered at the time as a method of pollution control, it was not pursued for standard development, because of space requirements aboard and the absence of shore side services. I should also mentIon that the effluent requirements for the macera'bor-di'siinfectant class of device, as stated In the original ABYC standard have not been changed. Those PAGENO="0590" 582 requirements are that an effluent be free of unsightly solids and contain coliform bacteria not exceeding an MPN (most probable number) of 240 per hundred ML (milliliters). This more than met the minimum waste treatment recommended by the Federal Inter-departmental Committee on Sewage and Waste Disposal from Vessels with respect to ve~seis carrying rel'atfevly few people (40 or less). With the adoption of (the ABYC `standard, the regulatory efforts by several states, and the growing interest by manufacturers the problem of measuring the capability of proprietary devices to meet the requirements emerged. This virtually coincided with the commencement in 1962 `of the Bureau"s evaluation testing of products intended for use abard boats, and the Bureau was requested by several manufacturers to test their devices. For on board safety aspects of the devices there was n'o doubt such testing was `appropriate under `the Bure'au's charter. Oounisel's `opinion was `sought with respect to the bacteriological examination necessary. The pertinent part `of that `opinion reads: "This represents a slight departure from prior programs in that you will be concerned not only with hazards to the boat so equipped, but also with the hazard of water pollution (i.e. whether the device is efficient for its purpose of preventing or minimizing pollution of surrounding waters). We believe that this is clearly permissible under your charter. Water pollution constitutes a hazard to all who use pleasure boats and to all who are in areas where pleasure boats are used. Your concern with efficiency in this instance is directly related to a recog- nized hazard." Accordingly, in early 1963, the Bureau undertook the development of a com- plete testing procedure for marine waste treatment devices as a basis for con- firming compliance with the performance objectives in the ABYO standard. That testing procedure was progressed to initial form by the fall of 1003. For the parts having to do with bacteriological testing, the Bureau is particularly in- debted to the assistance of sanitation engineers of the New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission; The Interstate Sanitation Commission for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut; to the Director of the American Biological Oontrol Laboratories, Tenafly, New Jersey, who serves as the Bureau's consultant, and to many direct discussions with state and federal public health officials. The testing procedure was distributed to authorities in all fifty states and to the U.S. Public Health Service. No unfavorable comment was received. Subsequently, the Bureau had many opportunities to test macerator-chemical devices. When effluent results were determined in strict accordance with the prescribed tests, the indications were such as to invite further exploration of the basic concept. For this several manufacturers submitted modified or pilot models. The Bureau accumulated both data and testing experience, but no device was listed and labeled. In 1966, the National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers, requested the Bureau to undertake effluent tests of all available production or pilot models of the macerator-chemioal type of devices intended for boat usage. The Bureau agreed on `the basis it would be consistent with Bureau practices in establish- ing and confirming testing procedures for evaluating devices. The NAEBM ob- tained the cooperative loan of seven (7) production and four (4) pilot models of proprietary devices. They were operationally tested during the summer of 1966. General observations from the accumulative effort to this point can be stated as: 1. Maceration must be virtuallly complete-the presence of practically any human waste solids in effluent prevents attainment of the required coliform bacteria level. 2. The disinfectant input should be consistent and sufficient in volume. 3. The overall operating period per device use must be adequate and is related to the above factors. If these conditions are met, the established effluent objectives can be attained. In January 1967, the Bureau issued its first authorization for the listing and labeling of a proprietary device of the macerator-disinfectant type. During the period covered by the foregoing, there were no established guide- lines in the form of advisory standards for human waste control systems using retention or incineration concepts aboard boats. These concepts are currently receiving rather intense attention by advisory standard preparing organizations. The concepts have been specifically referred to in regulations adopted by several states with some going so far as to emphasize their use by complete prohibition of any sewage discharge from vessels. The relatively recent legislation by the State of New York requires that every vessel equipped with a toilet and operating on waters of that State must have PAGENO="0591" 583 provisions for retaining, treating, or destroying human waste. The legislation also requires that devices used for the purpose must be approved by the Depart- ments of Health and Conservation of the State of New York. In early 1967, the Yacht Safety Bureau was honored by a request by the Division of Motor Boats of the Uonservation Department to assist it and the Health Department in estab- lishing evaluation standards for the classifications of devices upon which the required approvals could appropriately be based. The Bureau accepted this obligation. All manufacturers known to be producing holding tanks, recirculating toilets and incinerators were solicited for the loan of production samples for examina- tion, study and exploratory testing. It was specifically understood the effort and its results would not under any circumstances constitute an evaluation of the particular devices by either the Bureau or the State authorities. By mid-year, two (2) incinerators, three (3) holding tanks, and three (3) recirculating flush toilets were received. The physical work for this effort is substantially complete and the report for the State of New York is under preparation. With that report the Bureau is required to submit the evaluation standards in ready to use form. Accordingly, they are being prepared through the process described in the at- tached pamphlet for the development of all the classification standards to which Yacht Safety Bureau evaluations of particular niarine products can be related. The titles for these classification standards are: YSB Standard E-21-"Requirements for Marine Waste Treatment and Dis- posal Devices." YSB Standard E-45------"Requirements for Retention Assemblies for Sewage." YSB Standard E-49-"Requirements for Marine Recirculating Assemblies for Human Waste." YSB Standard E-52-"Requirements for Marine Sewag~ Incinerating De- vices." In their prePminary proposal form copies of each have been circulated for comment to the following: 1. The manufacturers who cooperated by lending devices. 2. Other manufacturers whose addresses were known. 3. The boating law administrators in all fifty (50) states. 4. The Division of Technical Services, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin- istration Department of Interior. 5. The Bureau's Operations Committee, which includes U.S. Coast Guard participation. The proposal designated E-21, having to do with the macerator-chemical treat- ment classification is a revision of the evaluation standard established earlier. The major revision is the inclusion of evaluation of provisions making the devices inoperative when the disinfectant input is inadequate. This is the only one of the classifications involving a bacteriological examination of effluent and it has just recently been directly reviewed with the Health Department of the State of New York. In preparing the proposals, the Bureau referred to present related advisory standards, including factors under consideration for their revision, and various state regulations. The proposals are currently being revised to reflect considera- tion of comments received. As revised they will be submitted to the Operations Committee for its judgment of their suitability as a basis for evaluating proprie- tary devices and the listing and labeling of successfully evaluated devices. Because of their present status I have not included copies of the proposals as a part of this statement. Early approval of them by the Operations Committee is hoped for and, as that is attained, I will be glad to see that copies reach you. It is universally recognized that uniformity of advisory standards `and of regu- lations are necessary, is a vital need. That need is particularly emphasized fo'r the boating field for which the maintenance of freedom of mobility is so desirable. It follows as necessary that testing procedures, as well as the accomplishment of them, be uniform. The legislation you are considering deals with both basic regu- lations and their implementation by means of testing. With the example of the control of water pollution from vessels as pertinent to your present concern, it is my hope I have conveyed to you: 1. An idea of very heavy Yacht Safety Bureau efforts, both past and continu- lug. on th~ proh1~m. 2. A picture of a dedicated, meaningful. practical, and fa'ir program for marine product safety evaluation `and certification for the boating public. I thank you for this oportunity and my statement is respectfully submitted to you. PAGENO="0592" PAGENO="0593" TESTING FOR SAFETY AFLOAT YACHT SAFETY BUREAU, IINC. NON - PROFIT PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANIZATION DECEMBER 1966 (585) 94-376 O-68-------33 PAGENO="0594" 586 YAC~T SA~TY ~AtJJ, ~NC. SPONSORONG M~MI3~ftS National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company Aetna Insurance Company Appleton & Cox, Inc. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company Boston Old-Colony Insurance Company Chubb & Son, Inc. Commercial Union Insurance Group Crum & Forster Group of Insurance Companies The Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies - Great American Insurance Company Hartford Fire Insurance Company The Home Insurance Company Insurance Company of North America Kemper Insurance Group Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Marine Office of America New Hampshire Insurance Company The Travelers Indemnity Company ME~MB1~R The Commandant - United States Coast Guard YACHT ~A~TY ~ ~NCO' 336 Olld ll1oo~t Ro~d1 W~sii~wood, N~w Jc~s~y 07675 Copyright 1966 - Yacht Safety Bureau, Inc. PAGENO="0595" 587 TI~STIING FOR ~AF~TY AFLOAT Org~za~or~i O~ The Y~ch~ S~e~y ~ea~i~i Founded in 1947 to advance the basic safety of pleasure boats and their equipment, the Yacht Safety Bureau, Inc., was completely re-organized in 1959, under the joint and equal sponsorship of the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., and the major marine underwriters. The Bureau is chartered under the Membership Corporation Law of the State of New York as a non-profit organization and it is exempt from Federal income taxes by ruling of the Internal Revenue Service. The Certificate of Incorpo- ration provides that: "No distribution of any of the property, assets or income of the corporation, however or wherever acquired, shall ever be made to or among its members either by way of divi- dends, or distribution in liquidation or otherwise, but all of its property shall be considered and deemed to be and is dedicated to the accomplishment of its objects and pur- poses. In the event of dissolution of the corporation, its property and assets shall be transferred to another organ- ization in furtherance of the purpose of testing for public safety in the field of pleasure boating, such other organiza- tions to be chosen at a corporate meeting held for that purpose, subject to the order of the Supreme Court as provided by law." h~rpose A~ A~iv~Ies All activities of the Bureau are conducted in furtherance of its primary purpose, stated in its Certificate of Incorporation as follows: "The purpose of this corporation is testing for public safety in the field of pleasure boating and any and all other corporate powers and activities shall be and are in pur- suance of this purpose or incidental thereto. "The corporation shall accept for inspection, testing and safety evaluation products intended for use on, in or in connection with small boats, primarily pleasure boats, including hulls and entire boats, and shall report and cir- culate the results of such inspections, tests, ahd evalua- tions to the public and/or interested parties, by provision PAGENO="0596" 588 for the attachment to such products of labels or certificates, or by such other means as from time to time may be deemed appropriate. "The corporation shall cooperate with and assist the Com- mandant of the United States Coast Guard in matters relating to pleasure boat safety. "The corporation shall ascertain and define standards and classifications of materials, devices and methods bearing upon small boat safety against which particular items may be tested and evaluated. "The corporation may acquire by any appropriate means laboratories and testing stations and the necessary equip- ment therefore, wherever situated; for the purpose of carry- ing on its primary activity and purpose. "The corporation shall have such other powers as may be implied by law to the extent only that such powers shall be appropriate and necessary to its purpose of testing for public safety in the field of pleasure boating." Recording Data for Test of Ventilating System Components PAGENO="0597" 589 Simply stated, the objective of the Bureau is to see that marine equip- ment that has been measured for its safety of operation, when used as intended, is available to the boating public. The objective is based upon the logic that safety begins with safe products and continues with how they are used. To accomplish the objective in acceptable fashion, the Bureau is basically similar in concept, organ- ization and operation to Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. The Bureau stands today as a carefully defined organization devoted to the prac- tical accomplishment of a public service without profit for anyone. For this, appreciation is due to the Bureau's sponsors, to the United States Coast Guard, to Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., and to many many men associated with boating as an industry and as a recreation. Admh~ ~sa~1o~ General authority to deal with all matters pertaining to the activities of the Bureau is vested in its Board of Directors. That Board is comprised of fourteen men with representation equally divided between the sponsoring marine underwriters and the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc. Officers elected by and from the Board are the President, First Vice-President and the Treasurer. These officers serve without any compensation as do all Board mem- bers. The active, day-to-day, management of the corporation is the responsibility of the Executive Vice-President, who, along with the Secretary, is appointed by the Board. The supervision of matters pertaining to safety testing is vested in the Operations Committee subject to final approval of the Board. This Committee is composed of technically qualified men from key parts of the industry and the United States Coast Guard. Its function is to render~judgments on all testing requirements developed for use by the Bureau and on all test reports that include recommendations for product listings. Fac~ll~ties The administrative office and initial testing station is at 336 Old Hook Road, Westwood, New Jersey. Here considerable capacity is in being and steadily being expanded for extensive physical testing of various classifications of marine equipment. Acquired or specially designed machines vibrate, rock, shock, burn, freeze, twist, pound, squeeze PAGENO="0598" 590 ~ and impart other forms of simulated environmental stress to products submitted for safety evaluation. Testing involving waterborne opera- tions, atmospheric exposure, or exposure to fire is conducted outside the Bureau's present station and the examination and tests for some products or systems may be made at a manufacturer's plant. Ara~g[~g Fo~ Tcs~s The Bureau does not solicit any work. A manufactàrer desiring a safety investigation, a report, and a listing of his product may address the Bureau at its administrative office. He is expected to provide a complete description of his product for a preliminary study to classify it, and at least in a general way; to determine the probable nature and extent of the evaluation work. If a Bureau standard has been established for the product concerned, setting forth the minimum construction and performance requirements to which it would be tested, the submitter is given a copy of it. I. Environmental Exposure Hull Ready for Launching in Southern Waters PAGENO="0599" 591 It is expected that the entire evaluation procedure projected for any product will be thoroughly discussed with each submitter by corre- spondence or by direct interview. When complete understanding is reached regarding limitations of the responsibility of the Bureau, the work to be performed, the preliminary deposit, cost limit, test samples needed, time required, and the inspection service to be estab- lished if the product is found acceptable for listing, an application form covering these details is sent to the interested manufacturer. Manufacturers may make appointments to witness particular tests of their product, if desired. ~ S~an~d~rds The Bureau's standards, prepared and under development, are intended to set forth minimum requirements for the construction and performance under test of various devices, materials, systems, and appliances, offered for use in the field of pleasure boating. A primary purpose of the Bureau's standards is to assure that all manu- Fuel System Components Installed in Environmental Exposure Hull - Ready for Test PAGENO="0600" 592 facturers of the same class of product may have their products evaluated for safety in the same way. Wherever it is practical to do so, the standards are based upon and designed to implement the advisory codes of the American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc., the National Fire Protection Association, and the regulations of the United States Coast Guard. All standards are developed with the cooperation of representative manufacturers. The requirements are based on sound engineering principles, research, field experience, records of tests, and on consulta- tions with manufacturers, users, inspection authorities, the United States Coast Guard, and others having special training or experience. They are subject to revision as changes are made in advisory codes or regulations, or as additional experience and investigation indicate. Established Bureau standards are available on request without charge to interested manufacturers. Test' Repo~s At the conclusion of any tests undertaken pursuant to an application, the submitter is advised of the findings. If these disclose objectionable features they are discussed only with him for they must be corrected and revised samples found acceptable before listing and labeling can be recommended. When the results of the investigation are such as to warrant a recommendation for listing, a complete report is pre- pared. It is reviewed with the manufacturer and submitted to the Bureau's Operations Committee for approval. Additional copies of test reports are available to submitters at cost. Listing And Labding Listing of a product, with its related privilege of the use of the Bureau's label, means that production samples of it have been evalu- ated and found acceptable under the Bureau's requirements for the class. Listing is an expression of the Bureau's good faith opinion, based on tests, that the item meets minimum applicable safety standards. It is not a warranty of quality or performance, nor are listed products of the same class necessarily equivalent in quality, performance, or merit. Product listings are currently promulgated on printed cards. Copies of these cards are furnished to the sponsoring underwriter members; PAGENO="0601" 593 to the members of the National Association of Engine and Boat Manu- facturers, Inc.; to such associations as the American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc.; the National Fire Protection Association; United States Salvage Association; the Society of Small Craft Designers; the United States Coast Guard; the National Association of Marine Surveyors and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Several copies of each Listing Card are given to the submitter, who can obtain additional copies at cost. Only commercially available products are eligible for a listing. Products may be submitted in their model stage for evaluation in relation to applicable safety requirements and reports made to the submitter for guidance. Such evaluations do not commit the Bureau to listings, which can only be determined when the products are in commercial form and are submitted for final examination and test. Continuity of a Bureau listing is provided for by means of its periodic inspection service. This is directed only to confirming that originally tested qualities of listed and labeled products are maintained so long as the listing continues. The Bureau's labels include the words "LISTED PRODUCT". They may be of any material adapted to the product, but are obtainable only from the Yacht Safety Bureau, Inc., and remain under its control. This condition is a contractual agreement included in the application for product evaluation. Costs Of Tests And Servkes Bureau charges to manufacturers who make use of its services and facilities are principally of two kinds with both based upon actual work expended. One relates to all materials, staff time, travel, and any other element, including preparation of the report that enters into the cost of performing the work necessary for a complete product investigation. The other has to do with the inspection service. Both are thoroughly discussed with manufacturers and agreed upon at the time of arranging for tests. Other charges have to do with labels, the Listing Cards, additional copies of test reports, etc. These are provided at the nominal cost of printing, plus the overhead of handling. PAGENO="0602" 594 Acceptance O~ ~rc~i~ L~s~ings The organization, purpose, and formal operating procedures of the Bureau have been so determined and defined as to warrant the greatest degree of acceptance of Bureau findings by all concerned, including governmental agencies, the boating industry, marine under- writers and the pleasure boating public. The Bureau, however, does not warrant or guarantee that its findings will be recognized or accepted in any individual case. Recognition or acceptance rests with the authority having jurisdiction. Engine Fuel Pumps Being Set-Up for 500-Hour Operating Test in Heat Chamber PAGENO="0603" 595 BOARD OF DIRECTORS John Armstrong, Jr., Pennsylvania William J. Bailey, Connecticut R. C. Boiling, Connecticut Arthur E. Brunck, New York Joseph E. Choate, New York W. R. Gherardi, New York Thomas F. Hamiii, Connecticut Fred L. Hewitt, Jr., New York W. R. Lichtenberger, Connecticut A. W. MacKerer, Florida Joseph D. McCarthy, Michigan James R. McQueen, Pennsylvania J. Ricker, New York Dale E. Taylor, New York OFFICERS Dale E. Taylor, President Joseph E. Choate, First Vice-Pres. James R. McQueen, Treasurer E. S. Terwilliger, Executive Vice- President and General Manager Robert Loeser, Secretary and Assistant General Manager OPERATIONS COMMITTEE R. C. Boiling, Chairman Francis L. LaQue R/Adm. C. P. Murphy, USCG Frank Nokes Howard Saffer G. Gilbert Wyiand William Zippier PAGENO="0604" 56 AMERICAN BOAT AND YACHT COUNCIL, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y. STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRAcTICES FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT DEVICES FOR MARINE TOILET WASTE, INCLUDING THEIR INSTALLATION Project A-8 1. Scope These recommended practices or Standards apply to devices designed to treat human waste discharged through marine toilets for pollution abatment as may be required by appropriate regulatory agencies. 2. Definitions The following terms are defined for purposes of this section: a. Most Probable Number (MPN) .-A statistical measure of the number of coliform organisms present and indicator of the degree of pollution from human sources. b. Detention Time-The time or period that the sewage is retained in the device. c. Septic Action.-The biological decomposition of organic matter in the ab- sence of air accompanied by the production of unpleasant odors. (Note: A more precise and technical treatment of these definitions may be found in "Glossary Water and Sewage Control Engineering" prepared by Joint Committee representing American Public Health Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Associations, Federation of Sewage Works Associations.) 3. Effluent requirements A sewage treatment for marine toilets should discharge an effluent meet- ing the following minimum standards: a. Free of unsightly solids. b. Meeting the minimum requirements of regulatory agencies, or containing a most probable number (MPN) of coliform bacteria not exceeding 240 per hundred millitiers (ML). 4. Pretreatment of solids Prior to disinfection, solids shall be sufficiently divided into fine particles to permit the required degree of disinfection necessary to meet the minimum efflu- ent standards set forth in Paragraph 3. 5. Disinfecting agent The disinfecting agent shall meet ~the following conditions: a. Be easily obtainable. b. Constitute minimum hazard when handled or stored and form no danger- ous gases. c. Be sufficiently effective in relation to the detention time of the device to meet the effluent requirements set forth in Paragraph 3. 6. Materials a. Materials used shall be such as to withstand the corrosion effects of the sewage, the disinfecting agent and the flush water. b. Materials used should have chemical and/or galvanic compatibility. 7. Design and construction The device shall: a. Be of ample strength for sale operation. b. Incorporate a detention chamber of size sufficient to produce an effluent which complies with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3. c. Be of the type which does nat depend on septic action as part of its treat- ment. d. Prevent the escape of dangerous gases or obnoxious odors to boat inter- iors. e. Provide for ease of cleaning, ease of maintenance, and ease of replenish- ment of the disinfecting agent. f. Function automatically with the operation of the marine toilets. g. Not require too frequent replenishment of the disinfectant. PAGENO="0605" 597 8. Installation a. Installation of the device and its piping should allow ease of servicing and replenishment of the disinfecting agent. b. The device shall be adequately secured independently of any connecting piping. c. All piping shall be sufficiently strong and durable to withstand any pres- sure that might be imposed upon it by normal operation of the device. d. Materials of the connecting piping shall meet the requirements of Para- graph 6. e. Subject to the foregoing, it is recommended that: (1) Boat designers and manufacturers, in planning toilet installations, provide a space of not less than 24 inches in length, 14 inches in width, and 17 inches in height for the installation of a device. (2) Overall dimension of toilet and device should not exceed 4 feet and the length of hose connecting toilet to intake of device must not exceed 3 feet. CONCLuSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. CHOATE. I have spent time giving you this background because the NAEBM has serious concern over the passage of any new legisla- tion that further expands the number of agencies, Federal or State, having the power to regulate recreational boating or which seems to depart from the regulatory approach set up in existing Federal boat- ing laws. This concern leads us to suggest two possible courses of ac- tion. 1. We believe that there is a need to grant time to the independ- ent organizations and the various State agencies mentioned to see if they can perform adequately to accomplish the objectives; 2. We believe that appropriate amendments to the 1958 Boating Act could resolve any administrative or enforcement problems to in- sure uniformity without the need for completely new legislation or the expenditure of extensive Federal funds on a new direction or ap- proach. Gentlemen, we have the same goal-clean water-and we believe that the desire and the mechanisms to reach that solution, at least in the area of pleasure boats, are already in existence. One of the chief problems concerned with water pollution today is the need for well-defined, carefully considered water quality stand- ards that can be uniformly accepted. While we assume that such stand- ards are being developed by Federal and State health agencies, we still do not know what water criteria we, the industry, will be ex- pected to meet with antipollution devices. In some quarters, there seems to be the belief that holding tanks might be the only acceptable device for small craft. The industry dis- putes that as unduly restrictive and as a real roadblock to continuing technological progress. It will also be expensive since a whole new system of shore facilities will be required. It is reported that Ontario, Canada, made a survey of 282 marinas to find out how many were interested in establishing pumping facili- ties. Two marinas were willing to put in the equipment.. Twenty ma- rinas said they would allow discharge systems to be set up on their property providing the Province of Ontario paid for the installation and manned the facility. The remaining 220 marina operators stated they would not allow sewage handling equipment on their premises. That's why Ontario~ is now taking another look at their act. Also, holding devices require considerable space aboard, so much so that boats under 19 or 20 feet in length would be hard put to find PAGENO="0606" 598 room for such installation. Finally, long offshore trips, where pump- ing equipment is not available, could no longer be a part of the boat owners' pleasure. Gentlemen, don't put diapers on the sea gulls to solve a problem predominantly created by municipal and industry pollution in the waters of our country. It won't work. The boating public, estimated at 40 million Americans, wants clean waters. This boating public also realizes that less than 5 percent of more than 8 million boats in use today have toilet facilities on board. They also know that in terms of pollution, that caused by recreationai boats is quite insignificant, and no justification for the overkill approach reflected in legislation pending before the Congress. NAEBM STATEMENT OF BASIC PRINCIPLES Our association has so far taken no formal position regarding H.R. 13923. However, over a year ago our board of directors approved a statement of basic principles relating to waste disposal from small boats. That statement reads: While recognizing that the pollution of waterways caused by recreational boats is minute in terms of the total water pollution problem, the NAEBM en- dorses efforts of the boating industry and Government agencies, Federal and State, to reduce such pollution as rapidly as technology and costs to boat own- ers will permit. In this connection, the NAEBM supports the studies and efforts of NASBLA to arrive at uniform standards through a uniform State pollution control law. After careful review of the entire problem, and with due regard to the interests of recreational boat owners, boat builders, and related segments of this indus- try. NAEBM recommends the following principles as fundamental guidelines in the formulation of public policy in this area: (1) Waste disposal from small pleasure craft constitutes only a minor factor in the overall problem of water pollution and presents problems of control totally different from land-caused pollution or waste disposal from commercial vessels. * (2) Control of waste disposal devices for pleasure craft should be reasonably uniform on all waterways, coastal or interior, and should be sufficiently flexible to encourage continued technical improvement. (3) In prescribing \vaste disposal devices for small pleasure craft, public authorities should give equal attention to potential hazards to boat users and to the general public. Appropriate safety measures are too frequenly overlooked in plans designed with the sole objective of reducing pollution. (4) NAEBM believes that the best approach to feasible control of waste dis- posal is through the development of uniform Federal Standards in cooperation with State Boating Law Administrators and that administration and enforce- ment of such Standards should be accomplished in the same manner as now provided, in the Federal Boating Act of 1958-the Bonner Act. NAEBM therefore urges cor~sideration of appropriate amendments to the Bonner Act to accom- plish these basic objectives with authority to be vested in the Department of Transportation to formulate appropriate standards in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies interested in pollution and safety measures for recreational craft. Such standards should be developed with the cooperation of independent, non-governmental organizations experienced in recreational boat safety problems. On behalf of NAEBM I appreciate the invitation of your com- mittee to appear here today. I regret that we cannot support H.R. 13923 as now written but I can assure you that experts within our industry and on the staff of our association will be available to assist the committee in developing legislation which in our judgment would be more consistent with existing boating laws and regulations and more effective in ëoping with the problem. PAGENO="0607" 59.9 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO OIL POLLUTION BILL I have one final comment on another bill before your committee, H.R. 15906. I understand a similar bill has already passed the Senate. You may be sure the boating industry will applaud all practicable programs to curb the discharge of oil into tidal or inland waters. This problem of oil dumping is not attributable to recreational boats, and we would urge a redefinition of the term "vessel" to exclude boats under 65 feet in length which are subject to the requirements of the Boating Act of 1940 or the Bonner Act of 1958. I suggest this, not because small boats should be permitted to dump oil, but only because the language of these bills is so all-inclusive that discharge of ordinary bilge water, or exhaust smoke could constitute a "discharge of oil" and put the small boat owner in jeopardy of prosecution. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Choate. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Choate, for a very fine statement. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much for this very valuable con- tribution. Mr. CHOATE. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Our final witness is Mr. John J. Gunther of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mr. Gunther, we appreciate your patience. THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968 STATEMENT OF JOHN J. GUNTHER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THE U.S. CONFERENCE OP MAYORS Mr. GUNTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief at the close of the day. I am John J. Gunther. I appear here today on behalf of the Na- tional League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. SUPPORT STRONG WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of M~yors have strongly supported Federal efforts to aid local governments in the control and abatement of water pollution. We have consistently appeared before this and other Congressional committees urging stronger programs and standards for water pollution control even though we .have recognized that these programs would impose in- creased costs upon municipalities. NEED FOR FULL FUNDING OF FEDERAL COMMITMENT Cleaning up our rivers and lakes will be very costly, but it must be done to provide sufficient water for homes and industry, for recrea- tion and for a wide variety of other uses. An increase in present efforts is needed, and municipalities must bear a significant share of these greater efforts. The Secretary of the Interior has estimated that at PAGENO="0608" 600 least $8.7 billion must be spent on municipal waste treatment facilities over the next 5 years. The magnitude of this task is demonstrated when it is recognized that the replacement cost of all existing munici- pal waste treatment facilities is estimated at $5.5 billion. Federal aid and Federal standards under the present water pollu- tion program have been a great stimulus to the construction of munici- pal waste treatment works, but if the program is to succeed the Federal commitment initiated by this committee and approved by Congress must be fully funded. The limited revenue base of municipal Government is severely strained to meet many neeeds. Setting local priorities for use of avail- able local resources is very difficult, and is made more difficult in this program where standards have been set assuming a degree of Federal support for local programs far above the level of actual appropriations. If the Federal Government cannot meet its committed share of the program, the timetable for achievement of the standards set forth in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 cannot be met by increased commitment of local resources, and the program must be reevaluated and its objectives, must be reset in accordance with the willingness of the Federal Government to fulfill its commitment. Federal aid was originally geared to small town projects, with the project ceiling $250,000. This ceiling was raised to $600,000 and more recently was eliminated, but the low level of the appropriations and the inherent political demand in such a program that many projects be supported, as reflected by State pollution control agency priority lists, has prevented concentration of Federal and State dollars on projects which would yield the greatest amount of pollution abate- ment per dollar of expenditure. As a result, Federal and State grants have in most instances paid for less than 10 percent of the programs in larger cities. Federal and State governments should share in pollution control costs. Downstream water users benefit from a city's program and that city's water uSers in turn benefit from upstream programs. But there is no right to impose waste on downstream neighbors. It is only equit- able that all beneficiaries share in the cost of pollution abatement. Federal and State aid is the only way that equitable sharing of costs is feasible. More States must help in financing these programs and some are moving in that direction. The annual volume of local construction is governed by the level of State and Federal appropriations. If Federal and State grants in combination provide 50 to 75 percent of projects costs, a city simply cannot afford to proceed until these grant funds are actually available. Unless these appropriations are adequate, progress will be delayed. CONTRACT PROPOSAL REQtTIRES CLARIFICATION The pending measure would authorize a Federal contract with municipalities to guarantee local bonds and to pay the normal Federal share of project costs, through reimbursement of `interest `and principal charges on part of the local bonds. The proposed legislation makes no definite commitment as to the extent of the Federal share of `an eligible project. Conceivably, the demands in `any one year could PAGENO="0609" 601 control the amount whioh the Secretary could commit to a specific project. Presumably, `the contract would `specify `a fixed percentage of the debt service to be paid each year during the `term of the contract. Presum'thly, `also, `the same percentage of project cost now `avaal'able as `a grant would `apply to `the Federal payment of interest and prinCi- pal costs on the bond's issued for `a project. These points must be made certain, for if the bond issue requires voter `approval, the exact amount of Federal partithpati'on must be known in `advances of the actual vote. TAXABLE BONDS The proposal stipulates that bonds issued by `a municipality under the new program must be taxable. The issue of the tax exempt status of municipal bon'ds is of vital concern to cities, and it must be considered independent of `ether issues. The National League of Cities `and the U.S. Conference of Mayors `are strongly opposed to any encroach- memt on t'he tax-exempt status `of municipal bonds u'sed for public purposes. The issue thoul'd not be raised a's part of this program which is primarily `aimed at controlling water pollution. Further, making municipal bonds `taxable would `substantially raase the rate of interest. Corporate bonds with ratings similar to revenue bonds of a city now command net interest rates of 61/2 to 7 percent. The city's revenue bonds of like quality command a rate of 4% to 5 percemt. A Federal guarantee might lower `this rate, but with the increasing Federal debt and `annual deficit, there is `some question that prevailing rates would be under `the 6 percent statutory maximums of State l'aws and city charters. INTEREST RATE SUBSIDY The proposed legislation would allow the Department of Interior to underwrite `a margin `of difference between `a tax exempt `and a taxable `security. This poses `a real problem, as there `are no tax-exempt `securities of this type. The margin of difference `to be paid to local Governments would be determined through negotiation with the Secretary of the Interior withn'o market test `of the rates `and no means to appeal `the rates determined by the Secretary. The `differences be- tween `the rate determined by the Secretary and `the rate believed correct by the municipality might appear very small, but `small dif- ferences in interest rates can make `tremendous differences in the cost of large bond issues. LEGAL PROBLEMS This program has been put forth as one of limited duration, sched- uled to expire when the present fiscal difficulties are ended and annual appropriation of the full amount authorized under the act is again possible. According to the pending measure, it will be a 3-year pro- gram, but it will take a significant part of these 3 years to revise State statutes and municipal charters to change interest rate limits and other bonding restrictions which may prevent many cities from participating in the program. A survey of the laws of the various States governing issuance of bonds show that many States have statutory interest rate limits at or near 6 percent and that in some States, issuance of the type of taxable, Federal' participation bonds contemplated in the bill before you is of doubtfullegality. 94-376 O-68----39 PAGENO="0610" 602 Many restrictions will apply to any project involving Federal aid, but this legislation carries the prospect of far greater Federal involve- ment than most Federal aid programs. Many actions requiring Federal approval could cause significant delay and higher project costs. THREAT TO TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF LOCAL BONDS SEEN The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors would favor a plan whereby the Federal Government would agree to a definite `basis for underwriting its share of the amortization costs of pollution control programs. However, we strongly oppose any measure which removes the tax-exempt status from municipal bonds. This loss would be a severe encroachment upon the tax-exempt standing for all municipal bonds. For at least 30 years, local government officials of necessity have united to oppose legislation seeking to remove the tax-exempt status of local bonds. If it is successful, the subject legisla- tion would be an initial breakthrough with subsequent actions to in- clude other types of local debts. This would place unbearable burdens on a municipality and no doubt lead to eventual Federal control of local financing. If the proposed plan of financing has merit, it does not need to exclude tax-exempt status. The legislation would be equally effective if it permitted the bonds to be tax exempt. Federal costs would not be increased. Ability to issue bonds would not be changed. We urge the proposed legi&ation be amended to stipulate that the tax-exempt status be retained for any municipal bonds to be issued. PREFINANCING cirroFI' If the full `amount authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is made available `for the program, we would not voice very strong objections to discontinuance of the provision permitting reimbursement for the State or local advancement of the Federal share of programs. If less than the full level of authorizations is made avail- able, we would object strongly to elimination of the re~payinent pro- vision, as it would further impair the ability of local governments to comply with the standards imposed under the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act. CONTRACT PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE IF MODIFIED We hope that a method can be found to increase Federal support f or local waste treatment programs to the level authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. We believe that the program proposed `by this legislation, with removal of the provision requiring that the bonds be taxable and clarification of the other points I have raised, would serve to increase the Federal commitment during this time of fiscal difficulties, and on that basis we accept it. I thank you for your attention. I will try to answer any questions you may have. I might add, Mr. Chairman, we have been working with the Depart- ment of the Interior and Bureau of the Budget and with the county officials and some members of your committee an'd some of your PAGENO="0611" 603 council, over on the Senate side also, in trying to work out some of these very `difficult problems. Mr. MCCARTHY. Good. I am glad to hear that. The points you make in conclusion there I think are very valuable. I am pleased to see that you are already in touch with the staffs of Members of both the House and the other body. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Gunther, I appreciate your testimony. I know there are many that share the concern that you have e~pressed for the League of Cities and the Conference of Mayors and their inability to adequately fund the programs from the Federal level. I would ask you this: Am I correct in assuming that the League of Cities and the Conference of Mayors are much in favor of the Federal grant program? SUPPORT FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAM Mr. GUNTHER. Yes. We have supported it every time there has been a hearing. Mr. MOEWEN. And as far as this new proposal on interest payments is concerned, would I be correct in believing that you would not want to see that put in as a substitute for the grants? Mr. GUNTHER. Absolutely not. We know in `many, many instances because of State and local, but mostly State, legal limitations, they would not participate and it would take sometimes 2 or 3 years to amend the State constitution. Mr. MCEWEN. You are speaking here if this were carried out under the present language, proposing to take away the tax-exempt status? Mr. GUNTHER. That is correct. Mr. MCEWEN. I think you made a very good point then. What has been proposed as a 3-year program, it might take a good part or all of the 3 years of this temporary program to get States and munici- palities to change their legislation to provide a higher debt ceiling- interest ceiling? Mr. GUNTHER. That is right. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you very much. Mr. GUNTHER. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Gunther. We have a statement here from our distinguished colleague from New York, Representative John. G. Dow, and without objection will appear in the record at this point. (The statement of the Honorable John G. Dow follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN G. Dow OF Nnw YORK STJBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, APRIL 25, 1968 LAKE POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Chairman, as a Congressman who has two bills before your Committee, HR. 13241 and H.R. 13638, relating to Lake Pollution, I appreciate the oppor- tunity to make a statement at your hearing on water pollution. I note that H.R. 15907 which has been introduced by Members of this Committee does incorporate in Section 6(b) the same concepts for prevention, removal and control of pollution in lakes as my H.R. 13638. I have been particularly concerned with the problem of entrophication because of a lake in my District which has become unuseable for all practical purposes PAGENO="0612" 604 due to the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation. New or improved methods which are encouraged by the legislation under consideration by this committee to prevent or control, or better yet, remove the alluvial growth found in some of our Nation's lakes would be of great benefit to our natural resources. To my knowledge, the specific problem of Lake Pollution has not been pinpointed in previous' Clean Water Act, passed by Congress and I feel that this specific attention to a serious problem of water quality should be supported. LATERAL SEWERS I would like to further direct the Committee's attention to the present lack of compatibility between the Federal program for sewer mains and treatment plants, and for laterals. I feel that these programs are assigned to various departments in our government in such a way as to baffle coordination. I have done some work in this area in my efforts towards my bill before the Banking and Currency Committee, H.R. 3645, which would simply raise the amount of monies for water and lateral sewer projects. In comparing the programs of HUD, Interior, and Agriculture, I have found the terms and conditions at variance. The percentages of Federal participation differ, and the degree of state participation is widely separated. In looking at H.R. 15907, Section 2(F) (5) (B), the language speaks of a comprehensive water quality control and abatement plan. Any plan which pur- ports to improve water quality control, it seems to me, would necessarily in- clude lateral sewers in addition to treatment works. To make this point in another way, any overall plan which would be useful in preventing lake pollu- tion and the control of nutrients and effluent coming into a body of water, would also consider lateral sewers or their equivalent. Mr. MCCARTHY. The record will be kept open for 10 days for further statements. (Statements of Mr. Franklin L. Orth and H. D. Doan follow:) STATEMENT BY FRANKLIN L. Onru, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL R113'LE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA The National Rifle Association of America is highly pleased to receive the opportunity to submit this statement to the House Committee on Public Works in support of the "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1908", H.R. 15900 and the "Water Quality Improvement Act of 1908", H.R. 15907, co- sponsored by the distinguished Committee chairman and the distinguished chair- man of the Sub~Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and S. 2760, an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizing research anddemonstra- tion programs for the control of lake pollution, and acid and other mine water drainage and to prevent pollution of water by oil. Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association, as the nation's largest sports- men's organization, recognizes the great need today for preserving the quality of our environment, including land, air and water, in order to preserve a high standard of living and to further those recreational values that Americans hold so dear. And since water pollution, in its unlimited scope, has spread through- out virtually all of our major river systems and encompasses every state, we feel that this action on the federal level will be a neeessary and major step for- ward in the massive pollution control tasks that lie ahead of use. The control and removal of oil pollution and discharge of other foreign matter by vessels and shore installations provided for in H.R. 15900 and S. 2700 will be of gre~it benefit to the nation's wildlife, especially fish and waterfowl, so dependent for life itself on a sanitary environment. We also applaud the federal leadership in encouraging, promoting and conducting studies on the effects, pre- vention and control of water pollution and the removal and treatment of pol- lutants that is provided for in H.R. 15907. Certainly the progress from this continuing research will strengthen our future attack on water pollution. Again, Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our unequivocal support for these bills, H.R. 15900, H.R. 15907 and S. 2700. Recognizing that they are but a step forward in the monumental tasks of cleaning our fouled stream systems and as such will be of great public benefit through the restoration of excellence in the quality of our lands and waters, we feel that this proposed legislation ought to be made public policy and public law. PAGENO="0613" 605 STATEMENT BY H. D. DOAN, PRESIDENT, THE Dow CHEMICAL Co. The Dow Chemical Company is pleased to contribute its knowledge and experi- ence to the hearings of the House Public Works Committee on H.R. 10044. As a commercial supplier to the municipal water pollution control market for some years now, Dow feels qualified to comment on the current situation and on the potential effects of this bill. In the field of municipal water pollution control, there is a very real distinc- tion between capital funds and operating funds. A city which sets out to build or expand a sewage treatment plant will get the necessary capital through bonds and Federal construction grants. Although Federal funds are not being appro- priated at the most desirable rate, there is no question of their eventual avail- ability. The city has only to apply and wait. In time, plants will be built, and pollution will be reduced. The operation of most municipal plants, however, reflects a very different situation. Municipal governments, along with other governmental units, have limited funds which must be disbursed in answer to a multitude of pressures, many with higher priorities than water pollution control. But more importantly, there is little incentive to spend money on the operation of treatment plants. Almost all municipal treatment plants are ran as cheaply as possible. This stems from a lack of standards by which to measure operating efficiency and from the fact that there is no real reward for producing a cleaner effluent. As business- men, we can conclude that clean water, as it comes from a treatment plant, has no economic value. Dow has, for example, demonstrated the concept of raw waste flocculation using chemicals in over 50 cities throughout the U.S. In over 90% of these demon- strations, the operation of the plant was significantly improved and the quality of the effluent was raised. Despite its merits, raw waste flocculation has been adopted by only three cities. Chemicals for raw waste flocculation must be pur- chased with operating funds. Our products which are purchased with capital funds are being accepted on their own merits. The bill which is before your Committee now, H.R. 16044, would be a step in putting a value on cleaner water. The bill provides $25 million a year for operating money, for ". . . proven new methods to achieve substantial immediate improvement of effluent quality, including phosphate removal". Whatever is purchased with this money will have to meet the criteria of immediacy and newness. Included could be flocculating chemicals, both urganic and inorganic, activated carbon for advanced treatment, and so on. It should go without saying that only workable items will be purchased. Because most of Dow's experience is with polyelectrolytes, or polymers, and because they are the most universally applicable, they will be the subject of the majority of this statement. Bare in mind that they are being used primarily as an example of what can be done. Polymers are high molecular weight, water soluble, organic compounds. They are used as controlled fiocculants to aid in solids-liquid separation. They have, for many years, been incorporated into the manufacture of paper, the mining and processing of ore, the refining of sugar, and the treatment of drinking water. New uses for polymers are being investigated. Under a two-year contract with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Dow is testing their value in the treatment of combined sewer overflow. A cooperative project between Dow and the Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission has resulted in a permanent ~polymer treatment station just above Lake Needwood in the Washington, D.C., area to remove silt from a stream. We believe our silt removal concept could be expanded into the treatment of whole rivers. We are testing erosion control chemicals by which silt may be kept out of streams. Polymers are even showing promise as an qf~ective fog dispersant at airports. Polymer treatment of municipal sewage could begin tomorrow in most existing treatment plants, with negligible capital cost. Polymers are controlled flocculants, generally used in the `primary portion of a treatment plant where the wastewater i's held quiescent to `alow solids to settle out for collection and disposal. These long-chain molecules attract and hold suspended solids, causing more to settle out faster. Polymers can be ex- pected to increase solids capture by about 50%, depending on the chemistry of the waste, the desigii of the plant, and the quantity of wastewater that the plant is required to treat. PAGENO="0614" 606 Polymers are also effective in secondary plants, i.e., plants in which primary treatment is followed by biological removal of dissolved organic pollutants. En- hanced solids capture in the `primary portion means that the secondary portion is required to treat less of a load and is therefore able to do a better job on what is delivered to it. Polymer treatment can be expected to improve the final effluent of a secondary treatment plant by about 20-40%, again depending on the waste chemistry, plant design, and wastewat'er volume. Beyond an improved effluent, polymers have demonstrated improved opera- tion of sludge digestors, a clearer supernatant from the digestors, increased fuel gas production, and improved incineration of sludge. Because the BOD load to the secondary portion of a plant is reduced, blowers may be shut down for power savings or more dissolved oxygen can be maintained in the mixed liquor. Many plants report improved pumpability of sludge. Less chlorine is necessary for disinfection, and, in fact, better disinfection has been noted. Chemical treatment, though, is not a substitute for full secondary treatment. Probably the most useful role for polymer treatment today is to increase the efficiency of overloaded and obsolete primary and secondary treatment plants until such time as new facilities can be designed, financed, and built. For example- In a Midwestern activated sludge plant with an average flow of 60 million gallons of wastewater a day (MGD), polymer treatment raised the removal of suspended solids from the wastewater to 69.5% from 39.8%. In this case, that's an e~ctra 73,000 lbs. of solids removed each day. At a chemical precipitation plant with an average flow of 50 MGD, polymers boosted the solids removal to 65% from 62% and boosted biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal to 58% from 38%. At ~i primary plant with a flow of 150 MGD, suspended solids removal went to 74% from 61% when ploymers were used. That's an additional 43,500 lbs. each day. BOD removal was raised to 50% from 42%. At a small trickling filter plant with an average flow of 2 MGD, polymers raised the suspended solids removal to 61% from 27%. BOD removal went to 65% from 40%. Specific e~tarnples of the potential of chemical treatment are difficult to trans- late into nationwide values. It appears, though, that the use of polymers could improve the effluent from existing treatment plants by an over-all average of 35-40% at a cost of $3-7 per million gallons. From the information available to us, it is likely that $25 million is enough. A great many treatment plants would be able to use polymers tomorrow. The $25 million will surely take care of that. Some plants will need to enlarge their sludge handling facilities to take care of the increased solids captured before they can make appropriate use of chemical treatment. By that time, we should know precisely how much money is needed. If $25 million is not enough, it isn't far off the mark. The occasional need for additional sludge handling capacity, when compared with the previous claim that little capital expense is needed, is the one seem- ingly paradoxical aspect of chemical treatment. While it can be interpreted as a contradiction, that interpretation would be wrong. Chemical treatment should be considered as a significant step to be taken while waiting for adequate secondary facilities. The sludge handling facilities would have to be constructed in any case. The situation would be right for the effective use of staged construction. For example, a totally inadequate plant could construct the sludge handling facilities that it would eventually need. Once these are completed, chemical treatment could begin while construction of the rest of the plant gets underway, a process that could take upwards of four or five years depending upon the size. And, as we understand them, recent pro- posals on "staged financing" would fit this situation very well. Neither will the passage and implementation of the bill interfere with prog~ ress towards full secondary treatment. While it's possibl& that a city might try to postpone construction plans by saying that chemical treatment does just as good a job, that response does not have to be accepted. It could also be argued that chemical treatment gives a plant the alternative of turning off the chemicals. We don't think this will happen because no money would be saved: the chemicals would be purchased with the Federal operating grant. The in-use characteristics of chemical treatment are also advantageous. PAGENO="0615" 607 It is perhaps the simplest innovation available to a treatment plant. It demands minimal operator skills, and significant benefits can be realized with no additional instrumentation. This is not to say, of course, that instrumentation wouldn't enhance the potential success of chemical treatment. The dosage rate for polymers is on the order of one or two parts per million. At that concentration, they have no effect on aquatic life. Moreover, because the polymers are settled and collected with the solids, there is probably no measurable amount in the effluent. Even if a plant were to be overdosed, the polymers would still be tied to the solids and removed. An additional benefit of polymer treatment is that it can be extended to include phosphate removal. A plant that is using polymers for raw waste flocculation already has half of a consistent and dependable pho-phate removal system. All that is needed is the addition of metal salts ahead of the polymer. The added cost of phosphate removal would be $10-40, depending upon the specific metal salt and the transportation charges. In view of the fact that the massive amounts of construction funds that are required are being diverted to higher priority needs, the benefits that could be gained by appropriating operating funds look very good indeed. This approach not only merits support, but may actually be a necessity if we are to protect our water resources until such time as new facilities can be designed and constructed. Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, unless there is more business, these hearings stand adjourned until further call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM H. BATES OF MASSAOHUSEPTS Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to record my support for the legislation before your Committee to *strengthen the control of oil and vessel pollution of both our coasts and lakes. It was my privilege to join Oongres~man Keith of my home state of Massa- chusetts in introducing H.R. 16559, which is similar to the Administration bill, H.R. 15906. While I wish to endorse H.R. 15906, the "Oil and Hazardous Sub- stance Pollution Control Act, as sorely needed legislation. I hope that favorable con&deration will also be given to the two amendments to the Committee's bill which are included in H.R. 16559. Before amplifying my views on this legislation, I would like to recall the fact that when we enacted the "Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966," we felt a big step had been taken toward combatting water pollution. However, that Act became effective on December 3, 1966, and, by coincidence, there was an alarming oil spill by a tanker one day later in the harbor of my home city of Salem, Massachusetts. The resulting investigation revealed the short-comings which had unfortunately been written into that Act so far as enforcement of the Oil Pollution Act amendment~ therein were concerned. S~nce then, therefore, I have sponsored and supported the various legislative efforts to remedy that situation. The bills here concerned, H.R. 15906 and H.R. 16559, seek to amend and strengthen further the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so as to provide for the control of oil discharged into the waters of our navigable streams and the contiguous zone of the United States, "if such oil may pollute or contribute to the pollution of the waters of the territory or the territorial sea of the United States." These bills also provide for "removal of discharged matter" from the navigable waters of the United States, the contiguous zone, and (in the case of H.R. 16559) the high seas. The Committee bill includes needed stiffer penalties against oil dumping by vessels off our coasts, sets up new government machinery for cleaning up oil in pollution emergencies, and contains a requirement that the pollutor pay the full cost of the clean-up. Howevor, I do not believe it goes far enough when it iimitslimits government clean-up action to oil spills within the 12-mile limit You will note that HR. 10559 proposes to include portions of the high seas outside that limit. A large scale oil spill of the proportions of the "Torrey Canyon" or the more recent "Ocean Eagle" accident in Puerto Rico could, if it occurred beyond 12 miles from the coast, be disastrous to our vital American fisheries resources of Georges PAGENO="0616" 608 Bank. I hope, therefore, that you will give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to cope with oil spills outside the contiguous zone, as provided in H.R. 1655g. Further, I believe that H.R. 15906 is too vague in regard to how and when the Secretary should delegate the clean-up responsibility to the agencies which will have to carry out that responsibility. The amendment proposed on the bill which I have sponsored, HR. 16559, would require the Secretary to make immediate advance arrangements for the assigning of this responsibility. Thereby, when an emergency arises, the machinery would be ready to work, with all agencies knowing exactly what they must do rather than improvise to meet a contingency. In the scant space of less than two years, Mr. Chairman, the need for a truly effective oil pollution control law has become unmistakably clear. I hope, there- fore, that HR. 15906 will be favorably reported by your Committee and promptly enacted by the Congress. I also again respectfully urge that it contain the two amendments to which I have referred, as included in H.R. 16559. PAGENO="0617" FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS-i 968 THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1968 HOuSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CoMMrrrm ON Pur~LIo Womis, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:12 n.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, the Honorable John A. Blatnik presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The Committee on Public Works will please come to order. Last week we had very lengthy hearings on H.R. 15906, by Mr. Fallon, and sundry bills on several major aspects of the water pollu- tion program. We are today having a followup hearing on the pro- posed amendment, additions, or modifications of the Water Pollution Control Act. At this time we again have before us Secretary Udall; Commissioner Moore, Commissioner, Federal Water Pollution `Control Administra- tion; Mr. Finnegan, assistant legislative counsel; Mr. Edwards, As- sistant Secretary for Water Pollution Control; and Mr. Hughes and Mr. Alm of the Budget Bureau. So, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Moore, Mr. Edwards, and your associates, Mr. Hughes, we appreciate that you returned this morning. Are there any further statements you have in mind or shall we proceed with the questions? STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF TIlE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. MAX N. EDWARDS, ASSIST- ANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL; HON. JOE G. MOORE, JR., COMMISSIONER, PEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; S. PHILIP HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ALVIN L. ALM, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; AND DAVID FINNEGAN, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Secretary UDALL. I believe we have finished all our prepared state- ments `and we `are just here to answer questions, just to take any ques- tions that you might have. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Kluczynski. (609) PAGENO="0618" 610 JOINT MuNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I would like to ask `a question of `the Secretary. Mr. BIJATN~IK. Mr. Kluczynski. Mr. KLucz~sKI. Mr. Secretary, I would like very much to have your impression on how the joint municipal program is working out. I understand there `are several examples of excellent cooperation underway between municipalities and industry. Could you elaborate on th:ait, Mr. Secretary? Secretary UDALL. Well, just giving you `a general look `at the n'athion'al picture, Congressman, I would `say that your `impression is correct. I think industry `and municipalities, where they `sit down to study the economics, do find there `are economic `advantages to both of them, instead of building separate plants, to build larger plants `together. As `a general rule-~of course, this applies to `any economic activity across the board-if you can move to something of large scale, you get definite economic benefits. And here is an example w'here industry can share in them, `and we find that in many parts of the country, this is taking place. I think `it `is `a very good thing. We think these combined plants `are much better from several points of view, `and I would say that we `are very pleased with `the progress we `are making on that. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. I am very happy about that. T'h'ank you, Mr. Chairman. STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. I did not have `a question, but there has been sup- plied to me since the last meeting a list of the metropolitan statistical districts for the country, and I would like `to ask permission that they be made `a part of the report, Mr. Chairman. I would like to see that it is `available at the time this bill is reported, so `that Members dealing with this bill, when it gets to the floor are acquainted with what that list is. I do think it i's rather important that it be m'ade `available `to `the membershp of the House when this bill goes to the floor. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. The `standard metropolitan statistical areas as defined by `the U.S. Bureau of Budget through Merch 1967 will be available with the `hearings. Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank yo~u. Mr. BLATNIK. It will be very, very helpful. Very properly so. Mr. Cramer. PERMITS FOR USE OF FEDERAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Secretary, I have a few questions. There are a number of technical matters that probably our staff can work out with your staff in some way. With permission of the chairman, I would like to ask you a question about another matter. I read in this morning's paper that you had a PAGENO="0619" 611 confrontation yesterday-this is a much cooler one I hope-in which the paper this morning says: Udall told a reporter after the meeting that no decision has been reached regarding the campaign demonstrators' use of Federal parkiand here as a campsite. Many members, myself included, have introduced or are introduc- ing legislation which clearly, I think, states the intent of Congress that Federal property in the District of Columbia should not be used for the purpose of overnight camping, building structures, shanty towns, or anything else. In the experience we have had relating to problems concerning de- monstrations in the District, it seems to me clearly within your pre- sent prerogative and the present statute not to give a permit where it appears that any possibility, reasonable possibility, that problems can result. Has any decision been made in regard to that yet? Secretary UDALL. Well, Congressman, there has not been any spe- cific plan presented. There has been no decision made. I am not per- sonally going to make that decision, I do not think. There is a com- mittee of the various agencies of Government that are interested that is working on this matter on a day-to-day basis, and certainly it is a problem that we are going to have to approach very carefully. We are aware of the views of various Members of Congress on this subject, and we are going to have to make a decision in light of what actually occurs. Mr. CRAMER. After it occurs it is going to be too late. The permit will have been issued. That is the problem. It seems to me it can be clearly foreseen, in view of what has hap- pened in the past alone, and in view of the substantial numbers of people that appear to be involved, according to published analyses, that it would be extremely risky to have substantial numbers of peo- ple building shanty towns anywhere on public property in the Dis- trict of Columbia. The statute clearly gives you authority as Secretary to deny such permits if it appears that problems might arise. I would like to importune you, as Secretary, not to issue such permit. I would like to discuss it with you otherwise, but this is the only opportunity I will probably have to do so. Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman has a right to raise that personally or it will be a matter before this committee. At this moment we are here for a different purpose and this issue is before the Public Build- ings and Public Grounds Subcommittee, so the question is a valid one but not at this time. Will the gentleman confine himself to dis- cussion or interrogation on the proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? The Chair recognizes t~he gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, I presume we will take it up with the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Public Buildings and Grounds, which I understand is meeting next week. But I would like to say to the Secretary that I would hope that neither you nor anyone else would issue permits until those hear- ings can take place next week. PAGENO="0620" 612 I understand we are meeting on Tuesday, are we not? I would like to suggest that as a first order of business, the bill referred to that subcommittee, and that no permit be issued until this actually is heard. I make that request of you as Secretary at this point. Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, I am not in position to make a commitment to you, because I am not the sole person to make the decision. There are other agencies involved, committees handling the matter. I spent an hour and a half last week before Senator McClellan's committee discussing this matter. This is the special subcommittee on the urban situation. I certainly say to you that we are aware of all the grave implications. We have not issued a permit to anyone at this point, and I am aware of the sensitivity of this subject, and I am aware of the responsibility we have to the people of the country with regard to the use of the parklands that belong to the Nation. And so we are certainly not going to be making any quick snap judgments, I can assure you of that. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I trust, Mr. Secretary, that no objection will be taken until we hold these hearings, starting hopefully, next Tuesday. Secretary TJDALL. If the committee is holding hearings next week, I think it is quite likely that this does not present any problem, hold- ing it up until then. THE OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1968 Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much. I would like to discuss briefly some of the questions that have been raised by the witnesses, and what have you, in the first instance relat- ing to the oil pollution control bill 15906. BURDEN OF PROOF The first is that it appears in the criminal section and, as some of the witnesses have testified, that the burden of proof appears to have been shifted to the shipowner to prove affirmatively that the damage or oil discharge was caused without his fault in a criminal case. Now, has any consideration been given to that problem? Normally a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the Government. This seems to shift the burden. Secretary UDALL. This is a technical legal question. I would like to ask Mr. Finnegan to answer. Mr. FINNEGAN. Mr. Cramer, the bill does provide a scheme of aJbso- lute liability whereby the burden of proof is shifted to the shipowner, the vessel owner, or owner-operator, in the case of cleanup; that is, the removal of the oil. Mr. CRAMER. I am talking about criminal liability. Mr. FINNEGAN. No, sir; the criminal provisions require that there be a willful discharge on the part of the owner-operator, and the bur- den of proof would be on the Government to prove that there is a will- ful discharge. Mr. CRAMER. Let's get the civil question, then we will get back to the criminal in just a moment. PAGENO="0621" 613 On page 3 of the bill, subsection (b)-section 20(b), line 23: "it is clear the liability on the part of the known person or shipowner, it is his responsibility to prove that it was either in order to avoid an ac- cident, talking not about civil, that if it is an emergency"- Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct, sir. Mr. CRAMER. If it is an emergency, unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding. Is that correct? Mr. FINNEGAN. Or except as otherwise permitted by regulations. Mr. CRAMER. Well, all right. Maybe we should ask what kind of regulations are you contemplating there? Mr. FINNEGAN. I cannot say what we would be contemplating as regulations, but it is possible that in a particular area, particularly in a contiguous zoile, that some discharges might have to be permitted in the normal operation of the vessel. We discussed this with the Coast Guard and iDepartment of Transportation. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it is true, however, that the party involved has to prove one of those factors or circumstances in order to prevent lia- bility, right? Mr. FINNEGAN. For civil liability for violations. Mr. CRAMER. For civil liability? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct. That is his defense. Mr. CRAi~n~R. I understand that. Now, there is no definition in this legislation for "emergency," is there? Mr. FINNEGAN. No, sir; there is none. Mr. CRAMER. Or an "unavoidable accident"? That has to be an emer- gency imperiling life or property? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct. This same language is in the present 1924 act. Mr. CRAMER. Unavoidable accident, collision, or stranded? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct. Mr. CRAi~n~R. Do you think it might serve the purpose if you have regulations indicating what that means? Mr. FINNEGAN. We do not have any regulations at this time. It certainly wouldn't hurt to explain it, define it in the bill if it is pos- sible. AMELIORATION OF EFFECTS OF DISCHARGED MATTER Mr. CRAMER. Page 8, relating to removal of discharged matter from the navigable waters of the United States and the contiguous zone, lines 17 and 18, this is if the damage occurs and the owner does not clean it up: If such owner or operator fails to so act- As the Secretary directs him to act, is that correct? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER (continuing). The Secretary may ameliorate the effects of such discharged matter, and such owner `or operator, and, as appropriate, `the vessel and shore `installation shall be Liable, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the United States for the full amount of the actual costs incurred by the United States under this sub- section: Provided, That there `shall be no such liability where such discharge was due to an `act of God- PAGENO="0622" 614 And so forth. Now, "ameliorate" is a word whith, as it relates to legislation `and civil and `criminal liability, civil in this instance, is a new word to me. Mr. FINNEGAN. There is no civil or criminal liability in regard to this section of the act, sir. The civil `and criminal liability refers `only to oil `di'schtarges, not to the removal of other matter other than oil. Mr. CRAMER. Well, in this `inStaiice the owner or operator, if ~e does not ameliorate `the situation, the Secretary can do so and he is charged for iTt? Mr. FINNEGAN. He can recover `the cost that the United States incurs. Mr. CRAMER. That is `a civil liability. Mr. FINNEGAN. All' right. But not in the context of what we were talking about a few minutes ago. Mr. CRAMER. I understand `that. We `are shifting to another subject. All right? Mr. FINNEGAN. All right, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What does "ameliorate" mean? And it `is up to the discussion of the Secretary as to how it is going to be `ameliorated. What does iTt mean? Mr. FINNEGAN. It i's `such measures as may be necessary to clean up the matter that has been dis~harged into the waters. Mr. `CRAMER. How `about the beaches? Mr. FINNEGAN. And adjoining shorelines. Mr. CRAMER. H'ow `about `the businesses that suffer loss of business? Mr. FINNEGAN. I do not understand your question, Congressm'an. Mr. ORAMER. As a `result of the beach `area being inundated with oil, certain businesses on the beach suffer. Mr. FINNEGAN. We `are `not talking about oil here. We `are not talk- ing about oil in this `section. Mr. CRAMER. Ameliorate the effects- Mr. FINNEGAN. Discharge `of matters `other than oil in this case. Mr. CRAMER. All right. Take other hazardous matter that chases people off beaches. Mr. FINNEGAN. We would `take whatever steps were necessary to clean up the beadhes if that its `appropriate. Mr. CRAMER. Do yoi~ not think you could get a better word than "ameliorate"? That means all `of itt, part `of ist, or `any of it? Mr. FINNEGAN. I expect we could come up with a better word, yes. UNLIMITED LIABILITY Mr. CRAMER. Another question that was raised was relating to ab- solute `and complete civil liability for the `removal of the oil. There has been testimony and I think it has been unanimous, as I remember, Mr. Chairman, that all of the present insurers and prospec- tive insurers, and company insurers, such as Lloyds of London, have testified that with no limitation of liability, this is not `an insurable risk. Mr. FINNEGAN. I read th'at testimony, sir. I would make the com- inent that I suspect that they could get some insurance; maybe not for the entire amount, but s'ome dollar amount, but I cannot be positive about that. PAGENO="0623" 615 Mr. CRAMER. Well, they have suggested, for instance, a limitation of $10 to $15 million perhaps. Would that be adequate if written into the legislation, to generally cover the problem? Mr. FINNEGAN. I would say, their suggestion was constructive and that we ought to look into it to see whether that would be appropriate in the handling of this legislation. LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT Mr. CRAMER. Now, they also indicated there is difficulty in insuring where there is not required fault of any kind. Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. That, too, would apparently prevent the insurance as it relates at least to that aspect of it. Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes; I understand it does. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, you are proposing relief against the ves- sel operator or the person in charge of the vessel, the person respon- sible, in excess of admittedly what they could be insured for; is that correct? Mr. FINNEGAN. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Now, that basically is contrary, is it not, to the con- cept the Federal Government has had in the past as it relates to en- couraging the maritime industry, `and thus settmg limitations general- ly on `all other matters? I `am'asking a policy question. DEVESTATING EFFECTS OF OIL DISCHARGES AND INDUSTRY'S RESPONSIBILITY Secretary IJDALL. Congressman, let me discuss this, because this may represent to a degree a difference or a change in policy. But I do not think it is difficult really with regard to the types of liability that businesses face generally in this country in the conduct of major activi- ties that can have an impact, a devastating impact, on man's environ- ment. With most of the big companies today, there are many activities where they act as self-insurers. They take certain risks themselves that `are not insurable, `and this is necessary because of `the `nature of things. I cannot see that this imposes `any severe hardship on the maritime industry that is not being undertaken by the people who do other transporting, other types of traiIsporting on land. It was rather interesting to me, the other day, on a list of the wealthy people of the Nation, to see some shipping magnates on the list. This has not been an industry that has suffered or will suffer, in my judgment, because the transporting of oil and other materials is a highly profitable business, one of the most profitable in this country. Mr. CRAMER. The testimony we heard, Mr. Secretary, was tha't a lot of these small operators would be hurt, put out of business, if they were caught up in a nonfault oil discharge situation without a chance to insure against that liability. Secretary UDALL. Well the damage can be so severe to absolutely vital resources, to people, to businesses that are conducted in areas. PAGENO="0624" 616 The Congressman, being from the State of Florida, knows how vital the beaches, for example, are to whole communities. You can have a community wiped out. And for my part, I would rather have us be rather strict and simply put people on notice that they are going to have to conduct their affairs with great care and do this, rather than let industry carry on their business with the feeling that they can get away with anything. The thing that really struck me very forcibly in both the Ocean Eagle and Torrey Canyon cases is that there was really an incredible lack of judgment in terms of managing ships, because there were serious pilot errors in both cases that were rather ridiculous when you get right down to it, in my judgment, considering the type of equipment that can be put on a ship today. REMEDY IN CASE OF UNKNOWN CULPRIT Mr. CRAMER. I also understand in the case of where you do not have an identified ship involved, there is no remedy offered for such as happened off Hawaii and happened off other places recently; there is no remedy offered in that situation; right? Secretary TJDALL. You mean remedy in terms of public protection? Mr. CRAMER. Public protection or Federal Government protection. Secretary IJDALL. I think the only remedy we have there is that presumably local governments, State governments, or the Federal Government, if there is Federal involvement, would take action. We have many of these situations. I would say today, in 95 percent of the cases with these discharges, the reports that come to my desk, we never find out who was responsible. It is a moving industry. It is like throwing a beer can out of a pass- ing car window; you never find out who was guilty. And you are quite right, there are a lot of these situations where the resort owners, where the communities that have beaches despoiled, where the bur- den falls on them; they get damaged. And maybe we need to have a systematic program of protecting our waters. I do not know that the Federal Government should do the whole job, however. Mr. CRAMER. Well, in other words, I think it should be clear on the record that this legislation does not cover every oil discharge or dangerous material discharge situation, only where the perpetrator is known. Secretary TJDALL. This is a gap, that is correct. Mr. CRAMER. And the Federal Government is not expected, we do not propose they `accept responsibility such as that which recently happened in Hawaii, or what have you. If you do not know who is the perpetrator, then there is no relief and the Government is not~ ac- cepting, out of the revolving funds or otherwise, responsibility for that situation; is that correct? Secretary TJDALL. Well, I think you put your finger on a gap here that maybe the committee would want to look at as to who is respons- ible for cleanup. At the present time, when these things occur, it is usually a quick ad hoc situation, and sometimes the State acts, sometimes the Coast PAGENO="0625" 617 Guard acts, sometimes others act. And we obviously need, and we are trying to develop now, a much more systematic orderly way, so we know who does what when one of these spills occurs. REMEDY AGAINST A SUNKEN SHIP INEFFECTIVE Mr. CRAMER. Do you have at the present time, which I think is important as a result of the experience that was acquired off Puerto Rico and what have you-of course, we knew the perpetrator there. Remedy against the ship, however, would not be of much value, would it? It was sunk. That remedy is not necessarily too effective either, is it? Secretary TJTDALL. In many cases it is not. Mr. CRAMER. Liability does not run beyond that of the value of the vessels, is that right? Secretary TJDALL. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. So if the ship is sunk and discharges the oil in sinking, there is no remedy, that is no effective remedy? Secretary TJDALL. Well, there may be a remedy against the owner of th~ cargo or the owner of the vessel who, you know, might have and usually does have other interests. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Secretary-perhaps legal counsel should clarify it-in legislation as drafted, the only remedy is against the ship itself which was sunk. That is not much remedy. Secretary UDALL. It would not be. I think our staff people ought to look at this in terms of strength- ening it. Mr. CRAMER. We have had some pretty serious problems off Puerto Rico, and other places trying to find what can be done to dispel this oil, disperse it, so it is no longer a threat to the beach, cleaning up: of the beach, et cetera. This is `a long-range problem for those communities, is it not? It has very serious impact. It is almost like a maj or disaster? Secretary UDALL. I quite agree and it is a poised threat that is there all the time and it is going to get bigger, not smaller. SUNKEN VESSELS Mr. CRAMER. We also have eight or 10 sunken ships, sunk during World War II, off the coast of the State of Florida, which at any time, if `they have oil in them, could possibly start a discharge. This bill, of course, offers no remedy in that situation. But what I am getting at is do you have underway or do you think it is necessary to include in legislation to do the job a specific program of research demonstrations to determine wh'at could be done, prop- erly financed, so that if the Federal Government does not have the responsibility, not accepting it here in many instances, that there is some assistance, technically, by the `Coast Guard `and what have you, to assist in these problems? Secretary UDALL. I would like Commissioner Moore to comment on this. Mr. MOORE. Congressman, with regard to the oil that might be in vessels that have been sunk for a long time or escaped from vessels, 94-376 O-65------40 PAGENO="0626" 618 I think we need to remember that oil is biodegradable. It takes a while, but it can be attacked by small organisms and in the passage of time, be disposed of, eaten up. This is true even where you have an oil spill off the coast of, for example, San Juan. Sometimes the use of substances to break the oil into smaller particles accelerates this process. There is a danger in using some of these things, because these chemi- cal substances may also be toxic to sea life of various kinds and some- times they could even have damaging effects upon the shoreline. But I think we need to remember that oil is biodegradable. Now, in the research and development program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, we are proceeding to tackle the technological problems and the research problems that go with the questions of either breaking down the oil more rapidly or methOds or means to contain it and dispose of it. RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORITY Mr. CRAMER. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate what is being done and the efforts being made, but do you think it will serve the purpose to specifically set out in your legislation by `adequate research, pilot plants, or demonstration projects, an approach to this problem, giving the Federal Government funds to do it in cooperation with the local communities? Mr. MooRE. Congressman, this is covered in the debt financing bill, also before this committee. There is adequate authorization for research and development in this area. Mr. CRAMER. In this specific area? Mr. MOORE. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. You do not then feel it is essential? You think it is essential to do so? Secretary TJDALL. Yes. Mr. MOORE. Yes, that is correct. TAXABLE STATUS OF BONDS UNDER DEBT FINANCING PROPOSAL Mr. CRAMER. Now, we have had a lot of testimony on the subject of the bond issue approach. We have had tremendous opposition to the concept of doing away with tax-exempt bonds for this water pollu- tion control purpose. I will be frank with you, I do not know how a bill can pass with that in it. That is my personal opinion. Is this absolutely essential to this legislation? Secretary TJDALL. Well, I want Deputy Director Hughes to com- ment on this as well as myself. We worked on this at great length. We think that the approach that we have come up with is sound in terms of public finance and in terms of the general economic situation. I personally think there is a much stronger argument for the ap- proach that we have adopted than simply following a traditional tax-exempt approach. I think this is a good solution to a problem, and I make that general response and let Director Hughes try his hand at it. PAGENO="0627" 619 Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Cramer, we are, of course, aware of the opposi- tion. W&tried to work with and did work with the city, county, and State organizations in the process of drafting the legislation. The problem from the Bureau of the Budget standpoint and from the Treasury Department, is the association of a Federal guarantee with the tax-exempt local security. We are earnestly seeking a solution to this problem that will meet the needs of the program as we see it, the financing needs of the Fed- eral Government, as well as accommodating to traditional concepts of State and local financing. There are some possible outs or compromises in this area. We would like to explore alternatives with the committee. But in terms of absolutes, the association of a Federal guarantee with a tax-exempt local bond is a fundamental problem. Mr. CRAMER. If that is taken out, do I then understand the bill will be acceptable to the administration? Mr. HUGHES. If the legislation provided for the guarantee of tax- exempt local securities, you are correct, the legislation would not be acceptable. Mr. CRAMER. It is a pretty rough problem, which places burden on this committee, to try to come up with a solution under those circumstances. Mr. HUGHES. We recognize that, Mr. Cramer. I think there are some possible alternatives here and we would like to explore them. They are necessarily some more complex than the arrangements in the bill itself, but we would like to pursue them. COST OF THE CONTRACT APPROACH Mr. CRAMER. I have one other question. Testimony we have had to date would seem to be pretty well concurred in that, number one, the present authorization limits set out in the bill, $2.275 billion does not include interest of $2.5 billion approximately. That limitation, how- ever, is not a fixed limitation. It is a guideline which you indicate you might accept or at present are accepting the Federal subsidy for interest paid by the States, and the makeup, their tax cost, as a result of revenue on taxable bonds is $900 million. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Cramer, thwt differential is to provide for the difference in the interest rate. Mr. CRA3n~R. That is right. Mr. HUGHES. Local security. Mr. CRAMER. So actually instead of the $7.25 billion figure, we are talking about an expenditure of $5.675 billion where there is an ab- solute Fededal liability, is that not correct, approximately? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct, Mr. Cramer. The only qualification I think is the fact that under a grant program, the interest would still accrue, but would accrue in a different account, interest on the public debt. There also would be offsetting tax savings with respect to the in- terest subsidy. Mr. CRAMER. There is no guarantee written into the legislation the present grant program would continue either, is there? In other PAGENO="0628" 620 words, the whole authorization could be eaten up with bonds, the amount, rather than grants? Mr. IE[UGHES. That is true. There would be flexibility between the two. That is obviously not the intent. Mr. CRAMER. So those communities that are going forward and have gone forward on a grant basis expecting Federal matching funds, could find themselves in the future forced to accepting this bond issue approach, if they expect to get Federal assistance? That could be the result? Mr. HUGHES. That, of course, could be the result under the present program as well if the appropriation were not made. Mr. CRAMER. Of course, it has the interesting aspect of not coming under the debt ceiling. Mr. HUGHES. The bond issue would not, that is correct. Those would be local issue. Mr. CRAMER. This is my opinion, they would spend money without having it conform to the debt ceiling? There is also contingent liability for the State share on the part of the Federal Government, which might approximate $21/4 billion more under the guarantee provision, is that not correct? Mr. HUGHES. The guarantee would be against the local share. Mr. CRAMER. Yes, and that is customarily about 50 percent, but it could be less or could be more? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. That is true of a quarter of a million more? Then you have continued liability for interest on State or local share of bonds of about $1.6 million. Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Other than the subsidy? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. The Federal guarantee would under- write both the principal and the interest. Mr. CRAMER. So your contingent liability under this proposal for 3 years is $3.875 billion, totaling those two figures. So actually the total absolute and continued liability under this 3-year proposal is ~9.5 billion? Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I do not agree with the time frame you have there. Previously the Congress, in the 1966 act, contem- plated outright grants of the $3.55 billion, or whatever it is, for a 5-year period. The larger figure you are talking about-and you and the budget director have no argument on this because your figures are correct-is not a 3-year figure. What we are now proposing under the bond approach is that we finance it entirely differently; we move away from the cash grants, and this is an expenditure that will occur over a 20-, 25-, or 30-year period. And we are really basically saying that we are going to ask the people who will be the beneficiaries of cleaning up our lakes and rivers, probably your children and mine 25 years from now, for them to pay a little bit rather than paying it in cash now, since we do not have the cash. This is about the situation we are facing. Mr. CRAMER. You express it rightly, sir. This does express the obli- gation in the future for a maximum of a 30-year period in that amount of money, so our children and grandchildren will be paying that bill PAGENO="0629" 621 and Congress will be obligated to pay those annual payments, no discretion. Secretary UDALL. I think we ought to face the fact that this is what we are doing and be very straightforward and honest about it, yes. NOT `~BACKDOOR~~ FINANCING Mr. HtTGHES. Just one comment, Mr. Cramer. You used the word "backdoor." That is a kind of word of art. Mr. CRAMER. I realized that. Mr. HUGHES. It is an appropriation. There is an appropriation requirement. Mr. CRAMER. It is a different type of gimmick not included in the debt ceiling, that is my statement, backdoor or otherwise. I have no further questions. Mr. BLATNITLc. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. I would like to address myself to one facet of this problem. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Since, as you said, Mr. Hughes, you had gone over this matter with cities, counties, and States, and sat down with them, your implication was at least that you had some expression of support from them, I think the Secretary would be interested in a letter I received from Mr. Healy, executive director of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. He writes me as follows, under letter dated April 25: You might be interested to know, too, that this measure was reviewed at the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission meeting in Port- land, Maine, on Tuesday of this week. At the conclusion of the review, the Com- mission members unanimously voted to recommend that the bill be rejected. There are so many defects in it that this seems to be the preferred course of action, rather than any attempt to offer appropriate amendments. I am sure you, and the other members of the various New England delegations, will be receiving formal notice of the Interstate Commission action from the Executive Secretary, Alfred Peloquin. Now, with a rather critical letter like that before us and now in the record, I raise the question as to just how much ground work was laid with State, municipal, and county governments before 15907 came up here before this committee? Mr. HUGHES. Well, I think the State, county, and city organizations obviously can and should speak for themselves. For the record we did meet very extensively with them, discussed the bill on several occasions and in considerable detail. Their reactions were understandably mixed and- Mr. CLEVELAND. Excuse me. You said "mixed." Was there anybody who was for it in that group? Mr. HUGHES. My answer is yes. I think, though, they should speak for themselves, because their positions have shifted from time to time. Mr. CLEVELAND. Are there available to this committee State author- ities to come before this committee and say this is our bill and we are for it? PAGENO="0630" 622 Mr. HUGHES. I do not know that I can answer that, Mr. Cleveland. I certainly am not here speaking for the State, local, or city organizations. The question Mr. Cramer asked and the one I was responding to was related to work done with them and what the possibilities were for resolving this tax exemption question. And we certainly are aware of the problem and have worked closely with and tried to keep the State and local organizations fully informed as to our problems, and we have tried to be acquainted with their problems. We certainly are aware we have not resolved all of them. Mr. CLEVELAND. You have not resolved-I think that is a euphemis- tic way of stating it. It would appear to me, from this letter and from what you told me, although you have talked to these people, it was more in the nature of a warning. It did not sound to me like any kind of partnership, coop- erative effort. If I have heard it once, I have heard it 100 times-I know the Secre- tary feels this way-if we are going to lick this water pollution prob- lem in this country, it has to be done on a cooperative partnership basis by the Federal Government, State, and local governments. I have heard that so many times. It is very distressing to me that a bill like this was never apparently discussed in advance, never had any acceptance from not only my own State, but all of the New England States. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Cleveland, the bill was discussed with the orga- nizations of State, county, and local people and we would be pleased to meet with the New England people to talk about it, about their partic- ular problems. But it was discussed extensively and in no sense on a notice-giving basis. We were trying honestly to acquaint them with some of the problems we saw in the guaranteeing of tax exempt obligations and to seek ways of cooperatively dealing with this problem. POSITION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES Mr. CLEVELAND. Now, Mr. Hughes, are you with the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. HUGIrES. Yes. Mr. CLEVELAND. I take it this legislation has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. Mr. CLEVELAND. And we know that it has the approval of the De- partme~nt of the Interior, because the Secretary is here and is in sup- port of the legislation. Has the Department of the Treasury been asked its opinion on this legislation? Mr. HUGHES. Yes, we have consulted with the Treasury as the legis- lation was developed. Mr. CLEVELAND. Is the Department of the Treasury in favor of this legislation? Mr. HUGHES. It is. It supports the bill as it is before the committee. PAGENO="0631" 623 Mr. CLEVELAND. Do we have a formal report available from the Department of the Treasury? Mr. HUGHES. I believe you do, Mr. Cleveland, but I am not sure of that. If you do not, I can certainly arrange that one be presented. Mr. CLEVELAND. Has the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare been consulted in this matter and then do they approve it? Mr. HUGHES. They were not consulted so far as I know. I do not be- lieve they are directly involved in it. I do not know of any problems with it. Mr. CLEVELAND. Was the Department of Transportation consulted in this matter and do they approve it? Mr. HUGHES. As far as I know, no. I do not believe they are involved. Mr. CLEVELAND. Well, I would think it would be involved, the Coast Guard. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Edwards says it has been discussed with the Coast Guard. I do not know if there is a record of the conversation or not. Mr. EDWAIWS. No, there is no record. We had rather extensive dis- cussions, however, with the Coast Guard on matters in which they are interested; that is, the oil pollution and vessel pollution legislation. UNAWARE OF OPPOSITION IN NEW ENGLAND STATES TO ENACTMENT OF H.R. 15907 Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I would like to say, if I may, be- cause I was disturbed by the letter that you read, our conversations, of necessity because when we are drafting new legislation of this kind, we cannot go into the regions, are with the national organizations, the organization of counties, the municipal or league of cities, and the mayor's organizations. We did confer with them. Now, we have been aware all along that there were differences and objections that they had to certain details. But all of our conversations at the national level have indicated that everyone was of the view, al- though there are still differences on the bill, that we could work out a bill and get satisfactory legislation. And I am very surprised to find the New England people say they want the bill thrown out. I know that certainly is not Senator Muskie's view. If they have some particular objections, I wish they would come to Washington and sit down with you and with us, and I am sure we can work any questions out. Because I do not see any disagreements so deep here that this committee cannot do as it has in the past and write a workable bill. Mr. CLEVELAND. I wondered if you or any member of your staff were aware of that meeting? Secretary UDALL. It came to me as quite a shock to hear you read a letter like that, because I was not aware there was this kind of concern by any of the State groups. Nothing has come to my desk that would indicate that. Mr. CLEVELAND. I was equally surprised to read the letter when I first saw iton my desk, because I assumed, of course, that legislation of PAGENO="0632" 624 this import, and far-reaching impact, that at least appropriate mem- bers of your Department would have touched bases with at least the State authority. I cannot break it down, in the first instance, to the city and municipal level, but I would think at least with the far- reaching impact of this legislation, that at least. you would have touched bases with the State water supply and pollution control commissions. Secretary UDALL. Congressman, as you know, we have a direct line of communication on water pollution control with all of the States. We have very good relations with most of them. As a result of what you brought up this morning, I am going to ask Assistant Secretary Edwards and Commissioner Moore to get in touch with them by phone today, find out if meetings can be set up, and let's get this clarified. Because it has not come to my attention that any group of States had such serious reservations about the legislation. We have had very good reaction generally. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Grover. BACKGROUND OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE BILL Mr. GROVER. Mr. Secretary, let's turn to H.R. 15906. Reading it over and hearing it discussed, it seems to me it is rather radical surgery for a very serious disease. I am wondering what studies were involved in bringing this bill before us and who was consulted. Secretary UDALL. You are talking now about the oil pollution? Mr. GROVER. Oil pollution. Secretary UDALL. A year ago, after the Torrey Canyon disaster, which served as an alarm bell for everyone, the President got into the picture. lie asked Secretary Boyd and me to make a special study of this problem, trying to anticipate what changes in the law would be needed, what plans would be needed to see-not that this did not happen here, because it might very well happen, but how we would handle such a problem of this kind. We had a high level team. In fact, my representative on it was then Assistant Secretary DiLuZio. We had some of the best scientific peo- ple in both departments. And this report was produced, which was sent to the President in February, and I think you will find it a very thorough report and analysis of the total problem. As a result of this, we did recommend the legislation that is be- fore the committee, so I think I can say to you that we have given very thorough consideration to this problem. The Department of Transportation and their experts and scientists were involved in it. Indeed, as you will see on page 2 of the report we had participation by all of the different departments that would be affected in `any way by this kind of legislation. Mr. GROVER. The Maritime Administration? Secretary UDALL. Yes. Mr. GROVER. And was the merchant marine industry involved? PAGENO="0633" 625 Secretary TJDALL. Well, this was a governmental study, but, we did, too, we had the American Petroleum Institute, the National Security Industrial Association, the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, the National Committee for Prevention of Pollution of Sea by Oil; all of these were brought into it in addition to Government agencies. Mr. GROVER. But you make no reference to such as the Committee on American Steamship Lines, the industrial sector of the merchant marine industry itself? Secretary IJDALL. I assume that they were consulted. I think I could say with confidence they were. I am not saying they agree with all these provisions, but in terms of drafting a piece of legislation, I would say we had a much more thorough effort than we would normally make in terms of a broad-gage study that involved very high level people. SHOULD THIS NATION WAIT TO ACT UNTIL THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY ACTS? Mr. GROVER. I was not here last week when you were questioned after you presented your statement, but was the question brought up defending any action on this bill pending the meetings of IMCO, the internatThnal organization which is studying this? Secretary TJDALL. I think this was mentioned last week. Frankly, I flatly disagree with this argument. I think our job is to protect our communities against spills, and I am all for an `international organiza- tion that will improve international practices. But to say let us sit back until an international group gets a program going, I think if we do not have a vigorous, aggressive program to protect our shore- lines, our seacoast, and our beach communities, we are not doing our job. Therefore, the argument, let's wait for an international solution, does not strike me- Mr. GROVER. I might suggest, if we do not do something about re- building our merchant marine in the next few years, they will be flying foreign flags. No further questions. LETTER TO MR. CLEVELAND FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I put that letter from Mr. Healy in the record? Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Without objection, so ordered. (Letter from Mr. Healy follows:) STATE OF NEW HAMPSKIRE, WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Concord, N.H., April 25,1968. Re HR. 15907. Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Jmi: Porn IJrie has expressed interest in this proposed legislation and would appreciate receiving a copy of it. I know you will be pleased to accommo- date him. PAGENO="0634" 626 You might `be interested to know too that this measure was reviewed at the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission meeting in Port- land, Maine on Tuesday of this week. At the conclusion of the review the Gom- mission members unanimously voted to recommend that the bill be rejected. There are so many defects in it that this seems to be the preferred course of action rather than any attempt to offer appropriate amendments. I am sure you, and the other members of the various New Rngland delegations, will be receiving formal notice of the Interstate Commission action from the excutive secretary, Alfred Peloquin. Kind personal regards. Sincerely, WTLLIAM A. H&ux, P.E. Ea~ecutive Director. (Letter from Secretary Udall to Chairman Fallon with copy of New England Water Pollution Control Commission comments on H.R. 15907 follows:) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 17, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Contmittee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: When I appeared before the Committee on Public Works on May 2 to continue our discussion of the Administration's pending water pollution control legislation, Representative Cleveland called attention to an expression of opposition by New England water pollution control officials to HR. 15907, the proposed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. Mr. Cleveland placed in the hearing record a letter dated April 25, which he had received from Mr. William A. Healy, Executive Director, New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, informing him of the recent action of the New England Water Pollution Control Commission in recommend- ing rejection of the bill. Since then, I have received a copy of the Commission's comments on H.R. 15907, giving the reasons for the vote in opposition to the bill's enactment which was taken at the Commission's Spring Meeting on April 23. The comments are well developed, clearly stated, and reasonable in tone. I believe that the Commission's statement would be a valuable addition to the hearing record, and I am enclosing a copy of the comments with the request' that `they be printed in the record following my colloquy with Mr. Cleveland (page 737 of the transcript). The Commission's objections to HR. 15907 as introduced, together with the sug- gestions of other organizations and individuals, will be helpful to us, as I believe they will be to the Committee, in our common effort to develop the strong- est possible water pollution control legislation. Sincerely yours, STEWART L. TJDALL, ~ecreta~y of the Interior. NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Boston, Mass., May 8, 1968. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Rayburn House Office Building, Wash- ington, D.C. DEAR Sm: The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission at its Spring Meeting held on April 23, 1908 voted to register opposition to the passage of H.R. 15907 and S. 3206. The proposed legislation has been reviewed by personnel of the water pollution control agencies of the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, and although recognizing that there are some good features in the bills it is the consensus of the Commission that these are outweighed by features which could seriously delay or damage State water pollution abatement schedules arid pro- grams developed in compliance with the Water Quality Act of 1965. PAGENO="0635" 627 Enclosed are two copies of comments of the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission relative to H.R. 15907. Officials believe that the States waste treatment plant construction programs will receive a major set- back unless a percentage limit is placed on projects assisted under contractual arrangements with the balance of the funds allocated on a formula grant basis. The Commission wishes to thank the Committee for the opportunity of submit- ting its views on H.R. 15907. Very truly yours, ALFRED E. PELOQUIN, Ewecutive ~S'ecretary. COMMENTS OF THE NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CorcmoL COMMISSION RELATIVE TO HR. 15907 The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and the Compact signatory States have reviewed H.R. 15907 and considered its impact upon the individual State water pollution abatement programs. It is recognized that the present level of appropriated funds under Section 8 of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 is inadequate to sustain the level of construction of waste treatment facilities indicated in the State implementa- tion plans submitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in compliance with the Water Quality Act of 1965. Means of obtaining additional funds must be developed if program momentum is to be maintained. Lack of Federal construction grant funds and the reimbursement provision set forth in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 led to legislative authorization for prefinancing the Federal grant share by the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont. The State of Rhode Island presently has such legislation under active consideration. These six States feel that with elimination of the reimbursement provisions from Public Law 660 as amended, it would not be possible to maintain the anticipated schedule of water pollution abatement, and it will be necessary for each State to reconsider its commitments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration relative to requirements of the Water Quality Act of 1965. Regardless of the method of providing addi- tional construction grant funds, it is recommended that the reimbursement pro- visions of Public Law 660 be retained. Limiting contractual arrangements to areas of 125,000 persons or more or a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area would eliminate from consideration many communities in the New England Interstate Compact area. As shown in Table 1, there are 24 SMSA's in the New England Interstate Compact area and seven communities with a population of 125,000 or more. These communities are all within SMSA's. (Photocopies of State maps showing SMSA's in the New England Compact area are attached for reference.) State Number of SMSA's Number of communities 125,000 or more Communities Connecticut 9 Maine 2 Massachusetts 10 New Hampshire 1 New York (compact area only) 11 Rhode Island 1 Vermont 0 Total 24 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford. Boston, Worcester, Springfield. Providence. 7 IPart only. Construction of waste treatment facilities for all other areas would be de- pendent upon the appropriated grant funds only, which admittedly, are inade- quate. Existing State prefinancing authorizations in anticipation of subsequent PAGENO="0636" 628 reimbursement should stimulate construction in these other areas to a level approaching that required to meet the implementation schedules submitted to the Federal Government. Supplemental financing should provide for specific allocations to States. With- out such allocation, it will be impossible to plan what projects could be financed during a given year. Allocations could be based on the allocations set forth in Public Law 660 as amended or on formulas considering the population equivalent of a given waste; the Biochemical Oxygen Demand removal required to achieve the approved stream classification; anticipated volume of waste to be treated; anticipated strength of wastes to be treated or other similar methods. Under the language of the proposed bill as now written, it is conceivable that ten States could receive all funds appropriated for contractual agreements with the re- maining forty States receiving no assistance. The proposed bill requires the maintenance of a reserve fund to meet expansion or replacement requirements of the treatment works service area as a qualifying condition for contractual agreements. Such reserve funds are illegal in Massa- chusetts, and it is possible that some municipal charters in other States would not allow reserve accounts. The language of the proposed bill as pertains to user charges and the maintenance of a reserve fund has been interpreted by some as double payment for waste treatment facilities-user charges to amortize the cost of the facilities and additional charges to establish a reserve account~. The other alternative to establishing a reserve account is expanding the bonding requirement~. Such a requirement could meet with strong resistance in local referenda. Serious delays in qualifying for contractual agreements could be incurred should a municipality find it necessary to obtain additional legislative bonding authorizations. Banks involved in municipal financing state that the debt service contract indebtedness reflects on a community's bonded indebtedness. If a community's debt limit is to be exceeded, special authorizing legislation would be required. Such action could delay the funding of a proposed treatment works. Bonding authorizations in the past have been granted to cover only a municipality's contribution to the cost of new facilities and not the cost of the entire project. Additional bonding authority would be required for those communities already authorized to sell bonds in anticipation of project construction thereby causing additional delays in getting needed projects underway. The New England Interstate Water Pollution Oontrol Commission supports the concept of mandatory certification of waste treatment plant operators as an instrument for improved waste treatment plant operation. The Commission has re- cently sponsored three one-week courses as in-service training for operators and is working toward establishment of a permanent school to train new people not now with the waste treatment industry. All courses will be designed to qualify an operator for certification. Upon completion of future in-service training courses, the New England Water Pollution Control Association certification examination will ~e offered to all operators on a voluntary basis. New Hampshire has a man- datory certification program and the Massachusetts legislature is considering a similar program for the Commonwealth. The New England Interstate Water Pol- lution Control Commission will en~onrage the development of a regional man- datory certification program. Coupled with the certification program must be an adequate wage scale for plant operators, and a concerted effort to make the industry more attractive as a career. The State's signatory to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Compact maintain a schedule of waste treatment plant inspections and require submission of periodic operational reports. Operation and maintenance surveil- lance could be strengthened to insure increased plant operation efficiency. New York State provides for operation and maintenance grants of one-third of the total eligible cost of operating and maintaining treatment facilities. To qualify under this program, the municipality must: "(1) Maintain standard operating reports, including the results of laboratory tests to evaluate plant performance and determine the effect of the plant effluent on the receiving waters. PAGENO="0637" 629 "(2) Operate the sewage treatment plant under the suporvision of a qualified operator. "(3) Oolleet and treat all sewage from the tri~butary area. "(4) Present evidence that the sewage treatment plant has been constructed in compliance with approved plans. "(5) Have enacted and enforced an effective sewer use ordinance. "In addition, the municipality must provide a minimum of primary treatment at this time, adequate staffing of the plant, and laboratory tests and physical measurements to evaluate plant performance and determine compliance with stream standards." The signatory State agree that more research is necessary in several areas, however, the amount proposed for research under HR 15907 is approximately 56 percent of the total requested construction grant appropriation. With due consideration to the currently critical financial situation, and the need for treatment plant construction, it would seem appropriate to reduce the research appropriation by at least one-half and add the difference to the construction grant appropriation. It is noted that the proposed legielation would eliminate the provision in the existing act that one of the Federal regional water pollution control laboratories shall be located in the Northeastern area of the United States. It is our under- standing that the site for this laboratory was selected and the final construction plans prepared for locating the facility in the Boston, Massachusetts area. T.he New England area has many problems peculiar to the region which would support the location of a regional laboratory in the Boston area. Among these are agri- cultural run-off which adds nutrients and pesticides to our surface waters. The problem of combined sewage storm water systems which are prevalent in this area; wastes associated with the food processing industries; the. pulp and paper industries and tanneries still create problems in the waterways of the Compact areas. The accumulated bottom deposits in our streams and lakes from these industrial as well as municipal wastes have undoubtedly changed the character- istics of the aquatic ecology and studies oriented to the restoration of a )ialanced clean water biota would be of great benefit to the regio~i. With more than 4500 miles of coastline in New England, the problem of water pollution from vessels is one which warrants considerable study. With this in mind, it would seem highly desirable to retain the Boston site for a regional water pollution control la~oratory serving the Northeast The Commission notes with concern the provision to remove the tax exempt status of bonds for ~onstruction of waste treatment facilities. It is anticipated that removing the tax exemption feature would hamper the marketability of municipal bonds and might allow interest rates to exceed legal limits. In conclusion, it is considered imperative that the prefinancing authorization set forth in Public Iiaw 660 as amended be retained; additional funds are needed to maintain the program momentum for water pollution abatement if the States' implementation plans are to be realized on schedule; new funding require- ments should allow sufficient time for communities to comply with the require- ments without generating a "slow-down" of construction activity. A system of fund allocations to States must be developed to allow for the effective planning and construction of treatment works. Removal of the tax exempt status of municipal bonds could make the financing of water pollution abatement projects more costly at the local level, and in some instances result in the need for legislative authority to exceed legal interest rate limits. From the standpoint of program administration, it would be highly desirable to develop aid ptegrams compatible with existing programs so as not to increase the administrative load on the State regulatory agencies. It is also recommcoded that the research fund authorization set forth in the proposed bill be reduced with the difference applied to available construction grant funds; and, that consideration ~e given to retain- ing the Boston, Massachusetts area site for the regional water pollution control laboratory serving the northeast region. PAGENO="0638" CONNECTICUT- COUNTIES, PLACES OP 25~C.O GB. ~ ~~ND 5T/~NDAP~DMETRO'OLITAN STATISTICAL AB.EA~ LEGEND Places of 00.030 c' ii:,, o Places at 50.030 co tOO OI~) o Placesot250CQto50.~C) ~ ,~ Stardard Mel'cool~an ___________ S'alst"at S'~j$ - ~ W~li 200.C3~) at W~lh l00.O.\) a E~I~iiI~~ Wjth es~ tin PAGENO="0639" MASSACHUSETTS- COUNTIES, PLACES OF 25000 OR MORE. AND STANDARD METROPOLiTAN STATISTICAL AREAS A B C 0 2 3 4 5 LEGEND F ~ ~ of 100,000 or more a pl~O!,Qf50.O:Q0fO1O0.D00 C rtaces cf 25.000 to 5rj9~fQ IC'tt * ~* ~ ~fibSt.i *tol$ - G .`..th 25.~ Out) or wire ~t iO~.CCQ ft I. 6 7 8 9 10 11 1? H A B C 0 2 3 4 5 6~ 1 ii 9 1G 11 12 PAGENO="0640" NEW YORK-COUNTIES, PLACES OF 25cOO OR MORE, AND StANDARD METROPOLiTAN STATISTICAL AREAS PAGENO="0641" 633 RF:OD~ ISLAND- COLTNTJES, FLICES OF 25,DX) OR MOJ~E, AND STANDARD LTro:~)LITAN STATISTICAL AREAS 94-3T6 -GS-------41 PAGENO="0642" LEGEND O Places of 50,000 to 100.000 o Places of 25.000 to 50.000 o Central city under 25.000 Standard Metropohtan With 100.000 to 250.000 W th Ic th 100 000 634 MMNE- COUNTIES, PLACrS OF 25~OO OR MORE. AND STANDARD METCOrOI hAN STA1ISTICAL AREAS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A `It (3 I) c G H C (I E (3 H K c3 M 1 2 3 4 `5 6 7 8 9 PAGENO="0643" 635 N.L'.V EAMPS;HIRE-COL'NT!ES, PLACRS OF 25,000 OR MORE, AND STANDARD METROPOLITAN SFATISTrCAL AREAS 0 LEGEND Places of 50.000 to 100.0< Places of 25.000 to 50,001 Stoodard Metropolil~o Statistical Areas - With 100.000 to 250,OC With less has 100.000 PAGENO="0644" 636 APPROVAL OF STATES' WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Secretary, during your testimony here oii April 23, you informed us that the standards for 31 States have been ap- proved. Have those been published as yet in the Federal Register? Secretary UDALL. Apparently the answer as of the moment is "No," but our plans are underway to do that. Mr. MCEWEN. Because it was in the Federal Register February 7 that I noticed over your signature there is a notice on water quality standards. In fact, Mr. Secretary, have any of the 31 been definitely cited as approved without any exceptions or any exclusions? Secretary UDALL. Yes, there have been several. The approach that we have taken generally-and I think it is a wise approach is this. We began a year ago, Congressman, with the idea that in terms of approving State standards, what we should be seeking is to have a State present something, let us rubber stamp it and approve it and send it back to them. It has since been decided that this whole prob- lem of standards is an ongoing problem, because technology is chang- ing. These are water quality standards, the States will want to raise them. AREAS RESERVED FROM APPROVAL This is going to be an ongoing process. Therefore, the procedure that we have been following is generally not to just say, "Here they are, they are approved," and send them back to them, but we found many instances where there are special problems, and you can describe these as exceptions or you can describe them simply as problems that we single out, where we indicate to them where we will be studying these matters further and refining the details on standards. So what we are giving back to the States is not a fiat outright 100-percent ap- proval. We say: Your standards are approved. But we then single out in most of these maybe three or four or five problems, whatever there may be, and we indicate to them that we feel that there should be further work in refining the standards on these matters, and that we are reserving the right to further consult with them before final ac- tion is taken. There is another series of actions that we have taken where we singled out major problems in some river basins-the salinity problem in the Colorado Basin, the thermal problem in another basin. We specifically told the States we were not going to make the decision on these matters, that we were going to study with them at considerable length before a final decision is reached. This is the kind of approach. MAY STATES ACT WITH RELIANCE ON STANDARDS AS APPROVED? Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Secretary, what assurance does the State have- you used the phrase here, this is an ongoing matter and as tecimology develops, and so forth, that these things will be reviewed. In my own State of New York, I know you are familiar, we have had a thorough classification of all of the lakes and streams of this area pursuant to our law. Water quality standards were established PAGENO="0645" 637 after hearings, after an opportunity was given to municipalities, to industry, to everyone who was interested to come in. What I am concerned about is at what point de we finally have it determined what water quality standards have been set for a given stream, for a given sector of a river, so that a. municipality, industry, can go ahead with their treatment facilities confident that what they are doing is going to comply with the standards not only of the State, but as approved by your Department? Secretary IJDALL. Well, I think this type of assurance must be part of a program I think because New York is a State that has been very thorough, very aggressive about this, that you would find that in our discussion with them about their standards, we are approving all of the main criteria. What we are singling out really for further work are special problems that exist in specia.l rivers or other areas. And I think the best way really to answer that question would be to sit down and go over the present status of the New York standards and to show what our approval has been. I would say, in the main, that all the States we have been working with the last 3 or 4 months have been pleased and satisfied with the results that we have achieved, and I think their water pollution con- trol people do not have a philosophical or other argument with us with regard to getting more precise answers to some of these problems where we have not been satisfied that the standard setting is precise enough in terms of what the Congress contemplated. SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENT Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Secretary, have you required secondary treat- ment in all cases? Secretary TJDALL. We are urging the States to commit themselves to secondary treatment of municipal wastes in most cases. In our basic guidelines, specifically guideline No. 8 we stated, "Further, no stand- ard will be approved which does not require all wastes, prior to dis- charge into any interstate water, to receive the best practicable treat- ment or control unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser degree of treatment or control will provide for water quality enhancement com- mensurate with proposed present and future water uses." In practice this guideline usually means but not always, secondary treatment of municipal wastes. But it is important to remember that the guidelines suggested certain actions, they did not require them. Mr. MCEWEN. As I understand it, we have had streams where classification has been such that quality of that water could be made clean without the secondary treatment required at this time. What I ask you now is under what provision of law do you require secondary treatment if the water quality standards do not require it? Secretary TJDALL. While we do not require secondary treatment, it is obvious that the Water Quality Act of 1965 called for upgrading of water quality, which requires a good degree of waste treatment in order to be achieved. Additionally, the act clearly called for plans of implementation to achieve the designated levels of water quality. We at the Federal level have the responsibility to assure, that the plans developed by the States for implementing standards are effective and PAGENO="0646" 638 reasonable. The term "secondary treatment" seems in many cases to identify the kind of treatment which will best meet water quality standards with respect to municipal wastes. The term has little or no application as far as industrial wastes are concerned. There may be some special situations-again, we have tried not to be categorical *and inflexrble-where exceptions are necessary. WTe sit down and discuss these particular situntions if they do exist. But generally the States have agreed with us with regard to the requirement of secondary treatment. I think most of your water pollution control people in the country at large realize that this is very basic if we `are going to have a mean- ingful water pollution `control program in the country. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield on that point? Mr. MCEWEN. Yes. UNCERTAINTY REGARDING STANDARDS Mr. CRAMER. I have a serious question that every State is faced with, one reason we do not have any real certainty `as it relates to the State's activities. I think that is what the gentleman is getting at. For instance, in May 1966, pursuant to the 1965 act, guidelines were issued. Eight says that water is to receive best practicable treatment for control of pollutants under those standards, unless it can be demon- strated that a less degree of treatment of control will provide for water quality enhancement commensurate with the proposed present and future water uses. And in no instance was there any mention of secondary treatment so long as that standard was acquired. I understand also on Saturday, May 14, of 1966, the Federal Register carried certain requirements, and then subsequent thereto, that. same publication, dated January 24, 1968, in the Federal Register. Then 15 days later, as I understand it, your Department issued by the medium of press release, I understand without hearings, notice, or rulemaking procedure, your standards or proposal with regard ot the nondegra- dation. I think it `was contemplated by Congress that, No. 1, all States should be properly n'oticed and have proper notice of what the stand- ards are. It is necessary for hearings to be held if those standards are to be changed. Third, if the standards ever should become finalized, and here we are 3 years after we passed the act, and they still do not appea.r to be finalized, nor do they appear to be properly published in the Federal Register. (At this point, Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) PROCEDURE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER QUALITY sTANDARDS Secretary UDALL. Congressman, let me acquaint you with the pro- cedure we have followed since the 1965 act was passed. The first thing that we tried to do in laying down guidelines was to help the States, because the States under the law have the primary responsibility, if they wnnt to exercise it, of fixing their own water quality standards. And our objective has been to work with them to PAGENO="0647" 639 get standards that we could approve, so that they are the State's standards. We first put together teams of water experts, scientists of all kinds, and with their help a year ago, or 2 years ago, actually, we came in with a set of guidelines for establishing water quality standards. Now, this was an indication, we wanted to indicate to all of the States what we felt the Congress had in mind and what guidelines they should follow in coming up with acceptable standards. The hearings that have been taking place on the standards are con- ducted by the States, not by us. And in each State in this country dur- ing the last 18 months, there have been all kinds of public hearings- in fact, Commissioner Moore, here, held them all over the State of Texas for a period of 4 months. So the hearings were held and should have been held, but they were hearings in all cases by the States and not by the Federal Government. Then once the hearings were completed, the States got up their proposed water quality standards, submitted them to us, and then this process *of negotiation went forward, and this is the procedure by which we have arrived at agreement with 31 States on water quality standards. Mr. CRAMER. But those agreements are all made with some reser- vation, is that not correct? Secretary UDALL. They are, with reservations, in some cases be- cause of necessity, because this is a dynamic process. REVISION IN STANDARDS Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. However, we specifically set out that if the State does not file the necessary letters and so forth, and if the Secretary desires a revision, the Secretary may, after reasonable notice and conference with representatives, prepare regulations, and thereafter there shall be hearings before a hetaring board; and on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing board will make findings, and so forth. So there is a clear procedure set out for accomplishing, if justified, such things as "the nondegradation standard as guidelines", but this appears to have been accomplished by your decision without following this procedure for revision of the previous published guidelines of Saturday, May 14, 1966, and reconfirmed January 24, 1968. NO STATE'S STANDARDS REJECTED Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I want to explain the situation we are in right now, and I think it is very important that the committee understand this. The procedure that you describe is in the law, and it is directed to what we do in the event we reject State standards. We have not rejected any. Indeed, our effort has been to negotiate very strenuously where we have disagreements and to resolve all of the is- sues we can and then, if there are some remaining issues, simply put them aside, to approve everything, and put these issues aside. Now, we chose to do this, and I think it was a wise decision, rather than to say if we approve 99 percent of their standards, and 1 percent we disagree, we disapprove the whole thing and set Federal standards. I think that would have been a very foolish thing to do. PAGENO="0648" 640 WORKING WITH THE STATES ON UNRESOLVED ISSUES We have adopted the basic approach of wanting to assist the States to improve their standards, and to get standards that we can approve, so that the States will feel that it is their program and they are going to enforce and supervise the working out of the State standards. And so, rather than adopt the rigid approach which we were talking about a year ago and saying, unless we approve every little detail, we will not approve State standards, we have adopted this flexible ap- proach, and we simply notify them that we approve their standards, but that there are certain unresolved issues and we will continue to talk with them about those, and we sort of leave those on the table. NO CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATIONS DISAPPROVED ON ACCOUNT OF RESERVATIONS Mr. CRAMER. Have you returned any application for sewage treat- ment construction grants as a result of those reservations? Secretary TJDALL. None. "NO DEGRADATION" POLICY Mr. CRAMER. Now, this no degradation approach, in which the pres- ent quality of the water is a condition of approval, were the States consulted relating to that I~rior to the decision, at the time the decision was made? NO DEGRADATION LANGUAGE AVAILABLE Secretary TJDALL. This was an issue that was raised in our guide- lines that we put out 2 years ago in terms of what was intended. And we have had to not only notify the States; we have had to have exten- sive discussions with all of the States on implementing this. And again we do not have any stock boilerplate language. We work with each State in trying to get a piece of language that they can put in their standards that will, we believe, satisfy the act and then be work- able in terms of whatever problems they have. In other words, we have not said to them that here is language, this has to be in your standards. We have said that we think that a certain objective is required by the act, and we want to achieve it, and we want a program that will be practical and feasible. Now, let us sit down and negotiate a general provision in the stand- ards which will cover this particular question. This is the approach we have used. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. However, that is not responsive to my question relating to the fact that you made a major change, as I construe it, relating to this question of nondegradat.ion. I do not think there is a question but that that is a major change, without following the procedures of the act or, in the alternative, conferring with the States relating to that new major requirement. Secretary TJDALL. Well, I do not regard it-some of them may re- gard it as a new maj or requirement. Ithink it was implicit in the act as it was enacted initially. We advised them of it in our initial guide- lines, and it was merely a matter of construing, not a matter of pro- PAGENO="0649" 641 posing, something new. It was a matter of how we construed the basic teiior of the act, a.nd how we implemented it. Mr. CRAMER. Can you indicate where in the initial guidelines that was contemplated? You have it before you there, I believe. I have read them, and I do not see it. GUIDELINE NO. 1 CONTAINS ESSENCE OF NO DEGRADATION POLICY Secretary UDALL. I think the essence of it is 111 the very first guide- line, policy guideline, water policy standards should be designed to enhance the quality of water. This is where we got to the real guts of the question. What does that mean? This was the philosophy that was implicit in the 1965 act, that this was an act to improve water. It is not to degrade water. This is the very first guideline we laid down. It is where we began. FUTURE LOCATION BY INDUSTRY ON RELATIVELY CLEAN STREAMS Mr. CRAMER. That implies that any stream that is not presently be- ing used for industrial purposes cannot so be used in the future if that use in any way changes the present condition of the water in any way or to any degree, if it has any degradation whatsoever, even though it means that industry could not locate there, and even though a State might use it to set aside certain streams for that specific pur- pose of industrial development. Secretary LTDALL. Well, Congressman, we have not taken that kind of rigid view. I do not think you can. And I discussed Alaska as an example, which is largely an undeveloped State in terms of its resources. `\\Te have left the door open to the consideration of any proposals. On the other hand, I think in most States you are going to find that these prime unpolluted streams are usually your best trout fishing streams, and other streams, and that they are going to protect them. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Secretary UDALL. They are not going to want industry to get on them, at least I do not. Mr. CRAMER. Is it not true in any instance where the State of Alaska, or any other State, wishes to place industry on a river and there is the prospect of some degree of degradation, that it requires approval by you individually as a Secretary and not by the State? Secretary UDALL. It would require approval- Mr. CRAMER. In addition to the States. Secretary UDALL. It would require joint approval, let us put it that way. Mr. CRAMEIL So, in effect, we are getting right around to what many of us had grave concerns about when this was established in the first place. And that was that we would end up with the Secretary in effect being able to revoke or not approve or override a State decision to, for instance, locate a plant, even though there was substantial sewage treatment facilities provided w~hich there would be, on a river which PAGENO="0650" 642 would have the effect of any degradation whatsoever; and I cannot imagine a pliant that would not have some, particularly now when you are going into thermal heating. If the water comes out of a powerplant heated, that is considered to the degradation. I think that is pending now in Miami, Dade County, where the local authorities approved the project. The local pollution authorities approved the project, but it has- and also in Orlando-it does heat the water. Although there is re- quirement not to heat it above a certain degree. And the Federal Gov- ernment has said, no, we will not let you build that plant, because there is a thermal degradation. REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF WATER USE A STATE PREROGATIVE Now, it seems to me that somewhere-and I certainly contemplated when we worked on the Clean Water Act in 1965 that standards would be set., that the State,s would have the jurisdiction to determine within reason where a stream should be used for industrial purposes, the nature of that, and under those guideline's, without having to come to the Secretary on every approval for every plant. Secretary UDALL. Well, they are not usuaJily going to have to come to the Secretary f'or approval on plants. There may be a few rare cases that will get to my desk. I think `the situation that ha's developed is that as far as most of your State water pollution control agencies `are concerned, `they have the same kind of expertise, the `same kind of people working as we have in the Federal `agency. Most `of these matters are going to be worked out at the local level. The States are going to have the main responsibility once their `standards are approved. I would predict there are going to be far fewer of these trouble- some exceptional cases that we are talking about there than anyone realizes; because I do not think that we have a great difference between what the States want to do and what the Federal Government wants to achieve. Mr. CRAMER. I just want to say to you `a's one of th'o'se wh'o worked hard on that legislation `and assisted in getting unanimous `support for it, I `appealed to my colleagues on the floor of the House on the basis that these standards would be `set and fixed pursuant to the `act, and for certain stream's it would `be o'bviou's that it would be needed for industrial purposes `and that the States, under those standards, w'ould have the final say~so relating to the location of those plants. Now, it appears, however, that it now takes approval of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government i's assuming by th'at means the responsibility relating to land use, zoning, in effect, `on `all inter- state stream's `in this country. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION EXPECTED ONLY IN UNUSAL SITUATIONS Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, I can on'ly say, in terms of how we are actually functioning and how the implementation of the act is going to work out, that some of the fears that some have, that the PAGENO="0651" 643 Federal Government is staying in the picture too much and that we are going to make the basic decisions, that this is not the way that the program is working out in fact. If we approve the State standards and- Mr. CRAMER. Including nondegradation. Secretary UDALL. An get nondegradation language with them, the' only time, probably, that we are going to be called into the picture is when a big argument develops within a State, and it is usually going to be the sportsmen and the conservation interests against industry. Let us be frank about it. When the argument develops, if this involves the nondegradation issue, we may be brought into it. But we are not sitting looking over the `shoulders of the States. Those standards have been approved. We do not want to, and we' expect to get in only in those rare cases where there is argument, whether the State is `observing its standards, whether it is enforcing its standards. it is really up to the States to be vigorous about it. Mr. CRAMER. You are actually in it. That is all I have. MEANING OF "NO DEGRADATION" POLICY Mr. MOEWEN. I do not have a transcript of your testimony before the committee in the other body, but I have a copy of Conservation News, April 15, in which they say, referring to you, Mr. Secretary: Tie said he resolved this issue by requiring `that standards shall include a provision to assure that present water quality will not be degraded. I quote further from this: We are asking, Mr. Udall said, that a paragraph be included in cnforcible standard's, s~bstantially in accord with the following: Then it quotes, I assume from the `standard, Mr. Secretary, and I would like to know if this is correct: Water whose existing quality is better than the established standard as of the date on which `such standards became effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other waters of your State will not be lowered in quality unless and unti.I it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State water pollution control agency and the Department of Interior that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social d.~ve1o'pment and will not interfere with or become injurious `to any assigned uses `made of, or presently possible in, such waters. Is that correct? Secretary UDALL. This is the water quality degradation statement, the policy statement that we issued. Mr. MCEWEN. Is it not fair to assume `that you are going to be under that policy in the middle of every controversy in every one of the 50 States where the Isaak Walton League or the local fish and game club, or whoever it may be, feels that a plant is going to, as it would of nece.ssity, I would think, somewhat downgrade the quality of the water, even though it would not affect the standard that had been set on that water? TilE WATER QUALITY ACT NOT A DEGRADATION ACT Secretary UDALL. Your State conservation agencies these days are just as sensitive to the Isaak Walton League as I am. They are going PAGENO="0652" 644 to hear from them. And I think most `of these issues are going to be fought out and resolved at the State level; hut this is the real basic question we faced, and we might as well be frank about it, and that is why this statement reads as it does, and, as you can see, we left the door open for exceptions; `but did the Congress in 1965 write an act whereby standards would be set, which, in effect, invite the degradation of waters down to some floor, or did the Congress write an act which conte'mpla'ted that the waters of this Nation were going to be im- proved? This was the basic question. And if some Members of Congress think that the ac.t was a water degradation act, 1 do not interpret it that way, and I may be wrong. And the Congress can revise it if they want to, but that was the view that we took, that it was a water enhancement, an enhancement of quality act, and that therefore `the standards should not be used to invite degradation. STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Secretary, as one who sat on this committee and supported this bill both here and on the floor, and as `a New Yorker who is proud of the program that we have in New York State for cleaning up our `streams and improving our water, I certainly never anticipated that the location of an industry would be a matter not only of State review but approval by the Secretary of Interior. May I say, if I can `be parochial, in my own congressional dis'trict we are proud of some of the trout wa'ters that exist in the State of New Y'ork or `anywhere else in this case. And we want those for recreation areas; but we also, on the last count I made, they have almost one score of papermills that are furnishing all manners of paper products to a consuming public that wants them. We never anticipated, with the paper industry and other industries, that they could not have future growth, future development in that area as long as they did not destroy the quality of the water, as it had been set following public hearings. I am frankly, Mr. Secretary, shocked when I read that it is contem- plated, and I quote again from this apparent standard, that water will not be lowered in quality-let me say, Mr. Secretary, and I said when the gentleman from Iowa saicT lie read your book, I, sir, not only read it, I bought it. But I am concerned, as you are, and I thiiik `all of our people are, in maintaining the waters of America. But I think we all recognize, or at least we should, that this affluent society has effluence, can't eliminate all the effluents if we are going to have the products of industry. We want industry, we.want the jobs, and we want the products that they provide. In our own State we have said u-hat u-c have believed, I am going to ask now, have you approved the New York State standards? Secretary TJDALL. Yes. We have given general approval to the New York standards. "NO DEGRADATION~' POLICY WOULD NOT PRECLUDE NEW INDUSTRY Congressman, you raised the real crucial question, and this is very good dialog. I know people are listening who should be listening. PAGENO="0653" 645 And I want to make a statement to you on this. Because the idea ha~ gotten out that the nondegradation policy means no new industry. And. this is ridiculous. It has no such effect. Let me get very specific. The State of New York is a good place to get very specific, because there are many cities on the Hudson River,, on the Mohawk and tributaries, for example, that pour untreated sew~ age into the Hudson River. And the purpose of this act., of course, is to have the municipalities and the industries clean up their effluents. Now, if you take one of the cities, and I will not mention names, on the Hudson River, which is providing no treatment whatsoever, it is pouring raw sewage in, and it puts in even a primary treatment plant, you have upgraded the quality of the river, have you not, by that one act you have upgraded the quality; and by upgrading the quality without any degradation whatsoever you have opened the door tO additional industry right there. As industry acts, and industry is acting-look in Business Week magazine this week, they are really moving, and I am proud of industry for their investments and their emotion on this. But as this program gets underway, we are going to be improving water, and the door is wide open to new industry, because most of the new industry that is coming in is g~~ng to be required by the States-I will not have to require it-to put in the best and most modern water pollution control equipment, and their pollution will be very minimal. In other words, one of these cities on the Hudson will open the door to a lot of industry, once you clean it up. So that I think the degrada- tion issue or nondegradation issue is being used today as a bugaboo by some of my friends. I do not think it is going to have that effect. I do not think it is going to operate that way. Mr. MCEWEN. May I suggest, Mr. Secretary, that it is certainly time now that this be clarified, because certainly this is not under- stood. Do you say to take the Hudson River, it is a good example of a stream they sorely abuse. If the community along there, with their sewage treatment plants sort of unburdened this stream of handling that waste, then it opens up for new industry to come in and use the stream for disposal of its waste. I do not think it is understood at all, sir. ASSURANCE CONCERNING STANDARDS NEEDED Coming back to the approval, I still feel, possibly it is the old saying, that the best is the enemy of the good, and maybe we should settle for wha.t is good and no,t necessarily the best. I think it is terribly important, Mr. Secretary, that communities and industries be able to rely on standards that have been set following public hearings. I have been told t.hat in some communities and indus- tries, in my own area, I have now been told after they have set stand- ards, that now they have got to put in secondary treatment, although it was not required to maintain the quality of the water. This of course leads to the understandable apprehension that action such as this having been taken, the antidegredation policy simply means that no one can locate an industry in a community that is dis- charging anything into those waters if it will in any way downgrade PAGENO="0654" 646 the quality of the water, even though the water is still acceptable for its classified use. Our whole program in New York State was based on a classification of streams from the trout waters to the stream that would not be suit- able for fishing, for recreation, but for industry use. I suggest, Mr. Secretary, that this is something that very much needs clarification. I will yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire. COST OF CLEAN WATER Mr. CLEVELAND. I think this dialog is interesting, too, Mr. Secre- ~tary. One of the problems that I have noticed during your remarks, when you came before us last week, was you outlined the several major acts that we passed in the last couple of years, and it seems to me every time we pass one of these acts, everyone gets the impression, whether erroneously or not, but they seem to get the impression that, "Boy. this has done it." "Now we are going to have clean waters", and it i~ all done. In this connection I think it would be helpful if somewhere along the line somebody put into the record, either now or later on in these hearings, just what the estimated total cost of accomplishing our stated objectives is going to be. I remember when we had our hearings 2 years ago that we were talking about Lake Erie, and of course the estimate of what it is going to cost to clean up Lake Erie ran all over the place, somebody said $5 billion and somebody $20 billion; and they were not hard figures. Mr. Secretary, do you have an estimate of what it will cost nation- wide to accomplish our stated objectives? Is that figure available? I think it would be a startling figure, but at least it would put this thing in perspective. Secretary UDALL. Our last study in terms of the present contem- plated standards and programs is $8 billion for municipal action-I am not talking about the storm drainage problem-and for industry, :$2.6 to $4.6 billion. Mr. CLEVELAND. This is just a beginning, is it not? Secretary TJDALL. Of course it is just a beginning, because this is really the backlog problem, and installation for expansion of cities and for new industries, of installation of new equipment which industry is moving toward already, and so are the cities. But I think tbis is a very useful discussion. INTENT OF WATER QUALITY ACT TO UPGRADE-NOT DOWNGRADE- NATION'S STREAMS Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Secretary, I voted for this, and participated in its shaping, and I certainly, for my part, did not anticipate that this was going to provide for the degradation of streams that were pristine. We were trying to upgrade and not downgrade, and if the impression gets abroad that we are going to backtrack now and permit industry, facing the installation of expensive equipment, go up to some trout stream and locate there, then we are going to be just going backward. And I read that `Business Week story, too, and I am very impressed with what industry is doing. I think, for one reason, they feel that this PAGENO="0655" 647 committee and the Federal Government and the States are serious about this, and they are not going to permit the degradation of streams. Now, if we go back a step, as I think this whole approach is, that we are going to retire everything. And I think implicit in the philosophy of this whole approach is that we are not going to stand by and let every trout stream be located into a millstream. I do not think it is vice versa, and I think that somebody who feels that way should state that view. I think Mr. Waldie has a comment. "NO DEGRADATION" DOES NOT MEAN CLEANUP OF A CITY'S POLLUTION SO THAT INDUSTRY MAY POLLUTE Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Secretary, I was a little bit concerned with your answer of your present policy on degradation. I happen to support it as it was announced, but I gathered, in your colloquy with a member of the committee, that you have established a principle that if the Hudson River is using, for purposes of this analogy, percentagewise, 100 percent polluted now, and you stop a city dumping in 10 percent of that 100 percent, that you open up that stream for 10 percent more pollution from industry. I gathered, what you are saying, that if you stopped raw sewage from flowing into the Hudson from a city, you have thereby cleaned the stream up, say, 10 percent, so you can now permit industry to locate and pollute the stream that 10 percent that you cleared up by pre- venting the city from polluting it. I hope that is not the policy, and I hope I misunderstood you. It seems to me you are not accomplishing anything, except you are substituting for raw sewage industrial pollution. If your policy of preventing degradation of the waters has any meaning, it would seem to me that you do not, by preventing one polluter to open up the ballgame for another polluter to take his position. Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, I was explaining what is in effect the floor problem as far as the water pollution cleanup is concerned. Let me give you the whole picture. And the point I was trying to make to Congressman McEwen is that most of our rivers and lakes in this country today are badly polluted. If we mount the type of vigorous program that some of the States are getting ready to do, and that we can do with the legislation pending before this committee, what we are going `to see is a significant cleanup in terms of the quality of water in this country. I know this is going to happen. This is the purpose of the whole program. We are going to significantly improve the quality of waters. We are going to clean up estuaries. The cleanup in all cases will not be 100 percent, because we do not have that good of technology at this point. But it will be a very signifi- cant cleanup. As a result, this policy that we had to decide, with regard to degrada- tion and what the floor is, was this. Were we to interpret this act and to approve standards that would actually give people a license to degrade the waters in any particular areas? We did not think the Congress intended so. PAGENO="0656" 648 This is the way we interpreted it. The point I was trying to make to Congressman McEwen is this. Some of industry have said: "Well, what you are saying is that there will be no new industry on the Hudson River, no new industry on this estuary, or on that lake at all." And this is not the effect of it, because most new industries that come on the line today are going to be required by the States, they are going to be required by these standards, to use the very best and most modern equipment available, and this means that the effluent which gets back into a river or lake from these new industries is going to be very small as compared with the type of raw effluents that have been pouring in. The result is that under this program you can have new industry, and you are still going to have a picture of water quality being significantly improved, so that there is no collision between the two if we carry out your programs in the right way. And it is not an either/or situation. It is a matter of doing our job, of meeting the type of standards that we are talking about and of seeing a very significant and ongoing improvement of the water quality in this country. Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not think the public is going to stand by while we try to upgrade these streams, while over here they are downgrading these [indicating]. FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN CALIFORNIA Mr. WALDIE. May I also add, Mr. Secretary, that in terms of at least the State of California, the establishment of the water quality stand- ards under the act has proceeded precisely as you have outlined, and in addition when areas in California have had disagreement with the standards established by the State-and I represent one such area- the flexibility that you have indicated as desirable in terms of arriving at a decision was provided our area. And we were permitted the oppor- tunity to present to your Department in great detail our objections to the proposal, and I would say at least in terms of California that the act in establishing these water quality standards has been imple- mented by your Department to the satisfaction of everyone in the State, although the decisions may not be satisfactory, but the oppor- ~unity to effect and to persuade has been afforded us in full degree. Secretary UDALL. Congressman Waldie has in his district one of the most serious problems in the whole State of California. It is the type of problem, however, that we do not have all the answers to. We have not developed a solution. We could not decide this. And therefore when it came to this problem we did not approve it or disapprove it. We said let us continue to work with it, and we will try to work out a solution, and then we will decide. I think this is the only rational commonsense approach for it. Mr. WALDIE. I think so too, and I wanted it for the record. WASTE OIL FROM SERVICE STATIONS Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Secretary, returning to the bills before us in the course of the hearings, one of the major problems is oil pollution problems facing the country today. It involves the ordinary run of PAGENO="0657" 649 the mill gas station. We know this from firsthand in my district, and I had no reason to suspect it is not the same all over the country, as a result of two things: One, the removal of the excise tax on oil and another a ruling by the Federal Trade Commission, that this used oil in crankcases is now almost worthless. In the old days a man would come around and pick it up and he would take it and can it and sell it again. Now, what is happening all over the country is that it is just being dumped down the sewers, and it is ending up in great quantities in our streams. Now, as far as I can determine nothing in this legislation would deal with that problem. I am wondering if you are cognizant of this growing problem. It is a real one, and what do you think you might do about it? Secretary UDALL. Congressman, you have put your finger on what. is undoubtedly one of the areas where there is a. serious problem to which we do not have a solution. This was covered in our report incidentally on oil pollution, the report I mentioned earlier. Gasoline service stations you will find mentioned on page 7. I think the committee might very well want to give this attention and that it may be that appropriate legislation is needed as I have indi- cated previously to the committee. I think the big problem that we foresee today in terms of water quality are those we are not doing much about. The whole thrust of this program and the work of this committee the last 3 years has been toward municipal and industrial pollution, improving the treatment works. The two sources of pollution that are today doing the most damage and are going to do the most damage in the future, come from first the runoff in urban areas. Of course if a service station attendant. puts oil in the drain and this drain runs out the next rainstorm, the oil runs out. The runoff of merely man's waste, the things we drop on the streets, the rubber that is burned and all of these things-we found when we made our Potomac River study that here is a source of pollu- tion that we presently are not equipped to do anything about. Now, part of this is simply maybe changing our ways of doing certain things, not littering as much as we do. The other source is agricultural pollution of the fertilizers that come off agricultural lands. Secretary Freeman is making a study of this right now. It was di- rected by the President in his March message on the environment. Here are two sources of pollution that we have got t.o control, that we have got to do something about. And of course t.he service station problem is only one aspect of this. Mr. MCCARTI-IY. Yes; but this is an Oil Pollution Act. It seems to me that here is one of the biggest problems we have, and we do not even get into it here. Secretary UDALL. Well, we have identified it in this report as an important problem. Municipalities could regulate this-as to whether Federal regulations would be appropriate, I think the committee might very well look into this. I was one who strongly supported it, and I wish at times Congress would consider more this approach to con- servation, because with oil particularly where you could re-refine and 94-376-65----42 PAGENO="0658" 650 reuse it, this is not only sound conservation in terms of maximizing the use of a natural resource, but it also would avoid the temptation to the service station owner to dump it in the ground or put it in the sewer drain somewhere. And I think we are going to have to have more and more recycling of materials, including oil, and that we ought to en- courage this by law, even by incentives rather than discouraging it. Mr. MCCARThY. ~Well, I think we will get into this in terms of an amendment added to this bill. I agree with you that the industry could do this themselves if they were so disposed, and there is some disposi- tion in the industry. There is a cooperative effort underway in Buffalo with the industry participating to find out what they can do with this. And I have also talked with some officials of the industry who talk in terms of when a truck arrives to deliver gasoline, that it would have a basin under the gasoline tank, and it would automatically pick up that used oil. But apparently this involves the acquiescence of the Justice Department, if we are going to look into that. But I think we should also consider the possibility of adding this to this bill, and I will work on that in an amendment. Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, what I really think we need to do with respect to the petroleum industry is to challenge them, and they are very resourceful and they are doing things that can be done. I think if we can do this, we make this a useful resource, rather than something we have got to throw somewhere. You know, we are an enormously wasteful country, when you look at what we do with so many things. The junk automobile is another example. We have really got to reuse this. And my science adviser, or the head of the Bureau of Mines, a very fine scientist who just resigned, unfortunately, and went back to in- dustry, has written an article on this subject in one of the science magazines that I am sure you would be interested in seeing. This is an example of waste, an example for conservation. Let us figure out a solution where we use this, and do not waste it or throw it on our neighbor and put it in the river or something. That is the real con- servation problem. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for the discussion. We in- tend to work with your staff people to clarify these different areas and go into much more detail on many of the things that have been raised here this morning. Mr. Secretary and your associates, we thank you very much for giv- ing us the full morning. Thank you. Mr. MCCARThY. The hearing is adjourned, pending the call of the chair. (Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee adjourned to reconvene subject to the call of the chair.) PAGENO="0659" APPENDIX STATEMENT OF RE~RESENTATIVE PATSY T. MINK OF HAWAII Mr. Chairman and Members of `the Committee on Public Waters: I wish to offer my support for the bills now pending `before this subcommittee which will extend and improve the methods of contro'ling oil pollution of our harbors, lakes, rivers `and other waterways. We in Hawaii have recently come face-to-face with the hardships of this problem and we realize fully that existing controls to prevent this damage are outdated, outmoded and non-workable in this age of increased emphasis `on trade between nations. The story of the unexpected oil slick which darkened the picturesque white surf `on Waikiki Beach in Hawaii was read by millions of persons around the world in their daily newspapers in recent weeks. The beach that represents the carefree vacation site for so many persons suddenly turned into a strip of gummy-polluted water. Surfers who took their boards !OU,t to catch the high w-ater found they had no control over the'ir actions. Swimmers came to the surface covered with an oil solution. Admittedly, it was a public health hazard, but also, the mere mention of oil on Waikiki Beach cost my State countless tourists and will ultimately be felt in loss of inc'ome from our major industry. It is, theref'ore, a matter of major concern for Hawaii. We know that many transport `and freight vessels recognize the provisions of the "International Convention for Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954", which generally prohibits the discharging of fuels wIthin a 50-mile area of a shore, `but many `others from countries which are `n'ot signatories to this convention do not now observe these rules. The present Oil Pollution Control Act of 1924 provides for penalties for any willful or grossly negligent discharge of oil within the territorial limits of the U.S., a distance of only three miles from beaches such as Waikiki. 5. 2760, already adopted by the Senate, would repeal the 1924 Oil Pollution Act and w'ould delete `the reference to "grossly `negligent" or "willful" now found in the definition `of "discharge" in th'e 1924 Act. This would eliminate the largest escape clause for persons who do cause `poilu'tion an'd it would bring all person's wh'o discharge oil into navigable waters under the scrutiny of an investigation. The bill also expands the coverage of the Act to shore installations which are located i'n or adjacent to the navigable waters of the U.S. It would make it unlawful `to discharge or permit the discharge of oil in'to or upon the navigable waters of the U.S. except `in cases of an emergency imperiling life or prope'rty or in ease of unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding or ex'cept as permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. Both vessel `an'd sh'ore installation owners and operators would be required by the bill to `remove discharged oil from the navigable waters of the U.S. or pay the cleanup costs in `all cases ex'cep't where the discharge is due `to an Act of God. The Secretary of Interior would also be authorized by `the bill to take steps either directly or by contract to remove the discharged matter from the navigable waters `of the U.S. or adjoining shoreline whenever the discharger fails `to act for any reason and `to recover the cost of the cleanup from the discharger. T'he owner or `operator in the case of `a vessel could not `limit the recovery o'f the cos't to the value of the vessel `and its cargo. I must agree with the Secretary `of `the Interior that HR. 15906 expands even further the controls available to prevent oil pollution. In addition to key control features of S. 2760, this bill would extend the prohi'bi'tion against oil pollution in the navigable waters of the U.S. to the Contiguous Zone, the 9-mile strip of (651) PAGENO="0660" 652 ocean beyond our territorial waters-thus, bringing to 12 miles the protected zone where it would `be illegal to discharge oil which may wash ashore. This extension of the ban on mixing oil with `water `in the 12-mile zone is only a first step. Actually I, `and many of those charged with policing this problem in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, would like to see the restrictions extended to the Continental Shelf, and about 50 miles offshore from Hawaii. However, I `am willing to take this nine-mile extension as `the first step. There `has been a preliminary investigation of `the oil slick at Waikiki by the' U.S. Coast Guard. There has been much speculation as to what happened and the most popular theory is `that a vessel had taken on sea water in its fuel tanks as added ballast. Before entering the limited depth of a navigational channel into Honolulu or Pearl Harbor, it is believed that the ship's captain issued an order to offload some of the water ballast, and with it apparently went some `of the Bunker C fuel oil. I am informed that conceivably, this could have occurred beyond the 12-mile prohibition in H.R. 15906, and the `oil slick could still have drifted into Waikiki Beach. However, engineers who have studied this condition believe it is less likely th'a't oil discharged beyond 12 miles would be carried by strong winds to a shore. It is for this reason that the prohibition against this discharge of oi'l should cover the 12-mile distance, rather th'an the three miles as stated in S. 2760. I was pleased to learn that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra- tion has awarded a contract and believes that it will soon accept delivery on a computer system of "tagging" `oil pollution to the vessel or container from which it was discharged. This will undoubtedly go far in tightening the control of this pollution. May I `also urge this committee `to include in `the legislation an authorization for `appropriations to permit the Department of the Interior to proceed imme- diately in eliminating the pollution `as a health hazard. All the bills provide that the offender be charged with this cost, but until he is located, the Depart- ment *of the Interior should be allowed to carry out `the necessary removal activities. Thank you. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BEN B. BLACKBURN (Subject: We must keep moving forward in the battle against water pollution.) It is no exaggeration to say that today the public is aware of the manifold aspects of the problem of pollution of the Nation's `water supply. Since 1948 the Federal Government has taken an ever increasing part in the effort to prevent, `abate and control this dangerous condition. Although the States h'ave primary responsibility in `this area there `are many ways by which the Congress has and must continue to foster Federal participation. Thi's committee has before it numerous proposals to extend and strengthen the national water pollution program. All of these proposals have some degree of merit, I propose to address myself to several which I believe to be of utmost importance `to the health and welfare of America `as they may result in the protection and improvement of the quality of its most important natural resource. America is many `times blessed by having within its boundaries thousands of beautiful lakes, of varying size, natural and man-made. They range from small farm ponds to `the magnificent Great Lakes, and in- clude the many splendid reservoirs, `the works of man. They serve many purposes. They provide a place to swim, to dive, fish in and boat upon. Oamping and hunting along their shores bring joy to m'any thousands. Reservoirs created `by dams serve to restrain flood waters to generate electric power, store water to be released later to benefit municipal and `industrial water supply and navigation. Many of `them support a variety of fish and other aquatic life and their environs furni'sh abode for many forms `of wildlife and waterfowl as well las a pleasant environment for hum'ans. It is only now being fully comprehended that America is in a fair way to losing many of these valuable benefits. Lakes are subject to the same mistreatment as the `water flowing in the Na- tion's rivers. The streams that feed these bodies of water are depositing their increasing loads of pollutants in them where they accumulate. PAGENO="0661" 633 There is little or no current, their capacity for regeneration by oxidation is more limited than that of flowing water. Sanitary and industrial waste m~atter is hastening the natural process of eutrophication in many of `them. Noxious aquatic organisms are increasingly becoming a deterrent to enjoyment. Some of our largest lakes have been called dying lakes-such as Lake Erie. Others are filling up with decaying vegetation, fish are dying, waterfowl are los- ing their natural habitat. The entire ecology is in transition and unless spartan measures are undertaken, and soon, our Nation stands to lose a valuable resource. I strongly `advocate that the Congress espouse an energetic program of resuscitation. The Secretary of the Interior should be authorized to direct, and implement by grant or contract, pilot studies and demonstration projects to develop and improve methods of prevention, removal and control of pollution in lakes, and elimination or control of undesirable nutrients and vegetation. Pilot programs should be undertaken by arrangement with State, interstate, municipal or other public'agencies `at locales where there is access by the general public. All agencies concerned with the natural environment should be consulted. These would include the public health, fish and wildlife and water resource `agencies. Such activity should be undertaken immediately and might well be financed with Federal funds up to 90% of the cost to ensure early action. State and lodal participants should, of course, provide assurances `that the im- proved quality of the lake environment would be maintained. Experience gained by these pilot programs can be utilized and applied elsewhere. A start for this program should be provided to the extent of at least $5 million. I feel it encumbent upon me to make clear my personal conviction that the role of the federal government should be one of research and development and not enforcement. The need for clarification of my position has arisen as `a result of a statement issued by the Secretary of the Interior dated February 8, 1968. The Secretary of the Interior, in that statement, has asserted a degree of con- trol over local, state, and w'ater control which, in my opinion, goes far beyond the `authority granted t'o h'im by the Congress. In his statement, the Sec'retary has i'ssued a regulation which would require any expansion of industrial discharge, or municipal sewage to be first approved by not only the State Water Control Board which has rightfully primary jurisdic- tion over such discussions, but also approval from the Secretary of the Interior. It was never intended by the Congress that the Secretary `of the Interior should have such broad ranging authority as to abrogate unto himself the final `and ab- solute control over the us'es of waterways throughout the nation. This unwarranted assumption of power by the Secretary of the Interior, poses a real and dangerous threat to the expansion of industry and the essential uses by municipalities and local governments of the streams within the various states. To require an additional approval from Washington, after industrial and local authorities have secured approval from state water control boards is to create an a'dditional impediment to growth without any co'rresponding benefit. The state of Georgia has been recognized as providing valuable leadership among the states in the development `and implementation of wrater purity standards. Other states recognizing the hazards to our stream's and lake's are likewise making great strides in policing the usages of their streams. Those persons who give direction and leadership within their state water control agencies are just as competent and `sincere as the minions surrounding the Secretary of Interior and I will trust their judgment. The Torrey Canyon `disaster `off th'e co'a'st of England was only the most spectacular of a continuing series of suc'h incidents which have oc'curred. These oil spills, accidental as well as willful, are extremely damaging, both esthetically and economically, and they must not le allowed to continue. The Secretary of `the Interior `and the Secretary of the Department of Trans- porta'tion, in which the United States Coast Guard is 1:ooated, `should be em- powered to draft strict regulation's for vessels carrying `oil on the high seas. The custom of discharging `oil into the sea from vessels should be absolutely prohibited within a distance of not less than 12 miles from shore. Should this be clone `the owners of any discharging vessel should `be held responsible for PAGENO="0662" 654 cleaning the beaches and for eliminating the oil patches in the water for which they are responsible. They should be held liable for the costs of such cleanup. Unfortunately, the practice of emptying old oil and bilge tanks close in shore has become entirely too common. The result has been that beaches up and down the coastlines of the United States have been encountering ever more frequently of late unsightly patches of oil besmirching the beaches, entangling waterfowl, and adversely affecting all forms of aquatic life. This must stop. The best way `to do it is to provide for `strict regulations and rigid enforcement. Oil pollution is not the only kind resulting from the operation of shipping. There is sanitary waste from ships `and even small boats. There are many waterfront industries, wharves, docks, warehouses and, other buildings and structures, where men's activities result in waste products `being deposited in the ocean, estuarine waters, and rivers. The'se are responsible for a great volume of pollutants in many forms and should be held responsible to the same extent In these days of lightning fast development in all of the branches of science and technology new products are being manufactured, new substances are be'ing formed, particularly in the chemical world. A fair proportion of most of these find their way into the Nation's w'atercourses where they do not belong in nature. Little is known of the effects `of thes'e many substances on man, on water quality and on property. Basic data is completely lacking on many of them, methods of treating `them are n'ot known `to be completely efficient, and the long term effect is completely unknown. It is essential that the research program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration be continued and greatly strengthened. This may be done by in house research and by contract. Such `a program `should `be directed at determining `the characteristics and effects of pollutants and methods must `be developed for elimInation of those found to be deleterious to man's health and welfare. As soon as `possible knowledge `developed in the laboratory should be tried in the field, through the pilot demonstration program, which again `exists in current authority but should be greatly `strengthened and expanded. Direct application to the benefit of the national water pollution control program of the Nation would then follow. A great deal remains to :be done in this respect. An area in which a serious weakness is developing in the war against water pollution is the lack of `trained `personnel. This is true of engineers needed to de- sign treatment plant's `an'd sewer systems, `and of the technical `talent needed to operate t'he plants when constructed. It is vitally necessary that `this situation `be corrected. At the `present time `there is `a program in operation at the field laboratory in Cincinnati which provides a training `course for technical `personnel. I strongly urge th'at `this progI~am `be expanded. Authority for `a definitely `larger program should `be included in any legislation on water `pollution control. This ins'titu- t'i'on should provide training to state water pollution `control personnel in order for them `to carry out `their functions mo're effectively. Similarly the program now in existence granting fellowships at various institutions in the field of sanitary engineering should be vastly expanded and made `attractive eno'ugh to induce young engineering students in greater num- bers to specialize in the field. This could be d'one by granting `scholarships as is being done in many fields throughout Federal programs. The vast construction program, to s'ay nothin'g of the research `and demon- stra'ti'on programs which are important elements in the Nation's efforts to achieve some degree of `sanity in its treatment of the physical environment, will requ'ire, for many years, an infinitely increased number of `trained personnel. The control of water pollution involves more than just money. Without the manpower `to carry out progr'a'm's `and projects to approp'riate m'ore money would be a waste of time. Philadelphia Water Commissioner Samuel Baxter testified two years `ago before Congre'ss when he was president of the Americ'an Water Works Assoeia- tion that he seriously doubted whether we had enough depth of technical talent to extract full `benefit fro'm s'pend'ing on `the `scale then `being proposed. The engineering manpower situation hasn't changed for the better `since. A `spokesman for the Water Pollution Control Federation says also that plant operators are very scarce in many areas, probably because of poverty level wages, PAGENO="0663" 655 but the supply is better in some areas where wages are better. Overall there is a stringency prevailing of truly trained technicians. In too many instances untrained persons are assigned `the task of operating the plants, or the plants cannot be operated efficiently or `at full capacity for the lack of manpower. Bos- ton's new $20 `million treatment plant is suffering in that very manner. Adequate funds should be provided for an expanded program of training personnel at all levels of expertise. Two~third's of the streams of Appalachia h'ave been proved to be grossly polluted. A principal cause of this is acid drainage from coal mines which are distributed `throughout this unfortunate region. Many strip mining opera- tions lie `bare, oien and abandoned with a constant drainage into nearby streams. A la'rge number of underground `mines `have `been closed down, `their entrances imperfectly sealed. These circumstances result in a constant flow of sulfurous, acid substances to the many streams and rivers flowing to the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. These same streams `and rivers, reinforced by the sanitary wastes. wood pu'lp and paper mill wastes of the region provide a major portion of the municipal and industrial water `supplies for the cities `of the seaboard and Gulf areas. The deteriorated `condition of the waters flowing initially through the coal fields require costly and complex purification before they can be rendered potable or suitable for industrial use. Seals at many long deserted mines hav'e deteriorated and crun1bled in many hundreds of instances, permitting free flow of these corrosive substances. I believe that a `pilot demonstration `program for solving this pro'blem is clearly indicated. Estuaries and estuarine areas found at the termini of our many rivers and stream's are zones of great productivity. They provide the essential spawning and feeding grounds for `the many form's of aquatic life that are the foundation for the `harvestable resources of the sea. They form the irreplaceable habitat for a va'st array of birds. It is the source of many foods such as shrimp, crab, clams and oysters. There where the fresh water and the salt water intermingle is where beauty, recreation, and great economic activity can be found. Unfortunately, the con- siderable natural resources of these areas are being threatened even as the other navigable waters of the Nation. The accumulated wastes of upstream cities, farms, industries, and other activities are concentrated here. Civiliza- tion, modern version, has spread over the sands, salt marshes, and shallow waters of our shorelines. Many estuaries have already been ruined, many oys- ter beds have been closed because the water is so polluted that it is unsafe to eat oysters taken from them. Wetlands are constantly being lost to the land speculator and real estate de- veloper. Traditionally, Americans have looked upon wetlands as wasteland. Thus, it has become customary to treat them as dumps. Factories, homes, hotels, all find cosatal marshes and tidewater flats handy repositories for their garbage and other wastes. Marine life which normally proliferates within the delicately balanced estu- anne environment, and which provides the nourishment for a large proportion of the economically valuable products of the fishing industry is being destroyed. Recreational opportunities are being lost due to deterioration of the environment. It is highly important that this situation be corrected before the valuable natural resource is destroyed. There should be an immediate survey and study of the potentials of the re- sources of es'tuarine areas. The end result should be development of means to pre- vent, abate and control the pollution now taking place almost without restraint. It may be that some estuarine areas should be set aside and preserved in their primitive natural state, but in any event they are too valuable to be allowed to become extinct as productive areas. Federal, State and local agencies should cooperate in an intensive effort to preserve them. Ample authority and funds should be provided for the Federal Government to organize and coordinate a broadbased investigation of methods to combat the present situation. If any of the language in the bills which I have introduced could be con- strued to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, then, I request that the Committee modify the ]anguage of my bills to correct this situation. PAGENO="0664" 656 I have mentioned only some of what I consider to be important aspects of the war against pollution of our greatest single natural resourse. There are others, of course, covered by the numerous bills now before this committee. I trust to the good judgment of the Committee to approve legislation which will continue unabated the battle which is so vital to the safety and welfare of our Nation. STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE ODIN LANGEN OF MINNESOTA Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that the Committee on Public Works is directing attention to the growing threat to one of this nation's greatest natural resources, our lakes. We in Minnesota are particularly aware of the benefits derived from attractive and clean lakes, since we have so many of them. The scenic surrounding and satisfying recreational and relaxing activities associated with lakes will be in ever greater demand as our population continues to grow. It is quite a sight to see the cars stream out of our cities at the end of the week, all carrying families to a favorite lake-shore spot that promises fresh, clean air, and pure water for swimming, boating, fishing and the many other activities connected with our lakes. Unfortunately, the presence of man in ever-increasing numbers has aggravated a problem that threatens the future of these great resources. This is why many of us introduced legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize a comprehensive planning program in lake pollution prevention and control. There are many complexities related to this problem which make it necessary that we approach it on a pilot program basis. In this manner we could determine the extent to which proper control and abatement of water pollution can be accomplished through local, State and Federal cooperation. The man-made pollution of our lakes is accelerating the normal aging process of such bodies of water. Lake Erie is a conspicuous example, but our smaller lakes, some in Minnesota, also are deteriorating at a rapid pace. Rank vegetation chokes much of the lake beginning in July, and restricts fishing, boating, swim- mning and other recreational activities. Subsequently the mass of vegetation be- gins to rot, creating very bad odor problems, and lowering the oxygen level so that fish frequently die. There is nothing so depressing as to see a lake in late July and August, choked with weeds and a green slime floating on the surface of the water. These conditions might have developed anyway, but would have taken thou- sands of years under the natural aging process. But man has accelerated this aging through pollution. It comes from many sources, such as septic tanks of the shoreline cottages, sewage from cities and towns situated on the watershed, pollution from livestock on farms, and draining from fertilized farm lands. Siltation from erosion within the drainage area further complicates the problem. Unfortunately, a lake has relatively little flushing action, and has much less capacity to dilute introduced wastes than does a flowing stream. Greatly expanded Federal, State and local research and demonstration pro- grams are needed to develop practical and effective methods for improving the quality of lake waters. The problem must be attacked on two fronts simul- taneously. First, we must find ways to remove or dissipate the existing nutrients. And then we must reduce the nutrients entering the lake. The pilot program suggested in my bill and others will provide the basis for solving the over-all pollution problem that is threatening the usefulness of the thousands of lakes in America. I respectfully urge the Committee to report favorably on a bill to control lake pollution. Not only would it be an investment in preserving these important facilities for future generations, but would protect the future, econonmic well-being of countless communities throughout the Nation where they depend on these lakes for a living. STATEMENT OF Box. CLAUDE PEPPER, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS Fno~r THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, like most other Americans, I am deeply concerned about our water resources. In many parts of the United States, the grim problem of water pollution and shortages is becoming one of our most critical political issues. PAGENO="0665" 657 Humorist Mark Twain once said, "Water, if taken in moderation, will not hurt anyone." But if Mark Twain were here today I doubt that he would find anything humorous in the water problems we face-and neither do I. That is one of the reasons that on March 25, 1968 I introduced H.R. 16163 to improve pollution legislation. Of all the resources known to man, it seems to me that the most abused is water. So long as our rivers, lakes, streams, beaches, estuaries and waterfronts could cope with the ever-increasing loads of pollution, chemicals, waste, and oil, we were content to let them struggle along. But now suddenly, the load is too much. We can see, and often smell, the evidence all around us. At times the evidence is shocking. For example, the break-up of the tanker Ocean Eagle in the bay at San Juan on March 3rd dramatically focused attention on the widespread damage that an oil slick can cause to the beaches in a resort area. But more important, this costly disaster in Puerto Rico still stands as a grim reminder to Congress that we have before us an urgent item of unfinished business. We must up-date our out-moded pollution laws, and we must do it now. It is for this reason that I urge support for my bill to amend the Federal Pollution Control Act ~o as to enable our authorities to more effectively cope with this serious source of pollution. According to an article in the March 10 issue of the New York Times: More than 700 million tons of petroleum and petroleum products move by sea each year. About 420 million tons of this total is crude oil, which is the greatest single source of marine pollution, because refined petroleum products are volatile enough to disappear from the seas in a relatively short time. The demand for oil will continue to grow and the economics of the industry are producing mammoth 306,000-deadweight-ton tankers that will dwarf the 200,000-ton supertankers now plying the oil routes. Industry spokesmen, who feel that occasional tanker disasters are as inevitable as aircraft disasters, are concentrating on the problem of pre- venting spillages and dumpings into the water. A. discharge of only 15 tons of oil can cover an area of eight square miles in less than a week. I think this quote shows how the oil pollution menace will continue to grow as more and larger tankers are built. The damage caused by oil pollution from the Ocean Eagle was not nearly so ex- tensive as that caused about one year ago when the Torrey Canyon went down off the coast of England. Great Britain and France claim that damages resulting from the 117,000 tons of crude oil that seeped from the crippled tanker came to more than $16.2 million. The 21/2 million gallons of detergent dumped into the sea and on the beaches to help clear away the crude oil were more harmful to marine life than the oil itself. In the aftermath, 50,000 sea birds died from the effects of the oil and the detergents. The damage from such disasters is not limited to the beaches, resorts, and tourist trade. The pollution also affects marine life, waterfowl, shellfish, and many other living creatures. Once this living resource is destroyed, it may be indeed difficult to restore it. HR. 16163 would help fix pollution responsibility, set penalties, provide for inspections, clarify legal tangles, provide for removal of oil pollutants, and include other much needed improvements in the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The President, in his recent conservation message to the Congress, strongly urged the passage of effective legislation to deal with the serious problem. Pollution control is not a local problem; it is worldwide. Health authorities estimate that more than 100 million persons die every year because of water- borne diseases. Think of it-lO million deaths a year from water pollution. If we do not act soon, water pollution may also become a matter of life and death right here in America. In New York City, for example, an epidemic of hepatitis broke out in 1961; it was traced to contaminated shellfish taken from the polluted Raritan Bay. The costs of water pollution to the Nation are enormous. No accurate tabula- tion of costs is available, but one recent estimate put the figure at $12 billion annually. And as population and pollution loads increase, these costs are sure to rise. PAGENO="0666" 658 In concluding my statement I should like to quote from Secretary TJdall, who shares with me a growing concern for the invading sickness' and pollution that threaten our total environment. These are his words: "Today we lead the world in wealth and power, but we also lead in the degradation of human habitat. We have the most cars, and `the worst junk- yards. We are the mOst mobile people on earth, `and we endure the worst congestion. We produce the most energy, and breathe the foulest air. Our factories pour or~t the most enticing products, and our rivers carry the heaviest loads of pollution." Thank you very much. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is my statement on Water Pollution. I would appreciate it if this statement and the attached letter from the Huron River Watershed Council could be make a part of the printed record of your commit- tee's hearings on Water Pollution which were held the final week in April. I have discussed this testimony with your staff and apologize for the delay in delivering it to your office. Sincerely, MARVIN L. EScH, Member of Congress. STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN MARVIN L. ESCH, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS Fao~i THR STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman, th'is Committee and this Congress have an opportunity `to make a significant contribution to the solution of one of our nation's most long range and serious problems-walter pollution. No area is free of this mena'ce and if it remains unattended, the problem will be magnified manyfold. Benjamin Frank- lin's adage that "a stitch in time saves nine" is certainly appropriate to this problem and that first "stitch" must be taken immediately. As you are all aware, water pollution is a complicated problem-involving private industrial wastes, ci'ty sewage treatment, runoff from agricultural areas, removal of dredging materials and hundreds of other pollution sources. The problems of water pollution are not limited by local, or country, or even state boundaries. There are hundreds of thousands of pollution sources along every river and small lake in the nation. Clearly the effort to correct this serious situation must involve the coordi- nation and cooperation of all levels of government, private industry and private developers. One of the outstanding coordinating units concerned with water pollution over a widespread area is the Huron River Watershed Council centered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I would like to bring to `the attention of the Members of this Committee the excellent works of this Council and the long range plans for `their future development and activities. I commend this ap- proach to the Committe and hope that the legislation which the House will con- sider in the weeks ahead will encourage the creation of such Councils throughout the nation. HURON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL, Ann Arbor, Mich., April 15, 1968. Hon. MARVIN L. E5CH, U.S. Honse of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. Mv DEAR MR. Escn: Please enter the' following at the hearings to be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; April 23, 24 and 25, 1968, on the subject of water. pollution. Our remarks refer to the esitablishment o'f a program of research and demonstration for the control of pollution in lakes. In particular we refer to SB. 2760 which has been passed by the Senate and referred to the House Committee on Public Works. In addition our comments refer to HR. 13312, HR. 13638 and HR. 13665 which are identical to the lake pollution control PAGENO="0667" 659 section of S.B. 2760 and which have also been referred to the Committee on Public Works. Svmmary.-The Huron River Watershed Council supports the establishment of a Federal Program of Reserach and Demonstration for the Control of Pollu- tion in Lakes. At a time whent real progress is being made on the control of pollution from large point sources-industry and municipalities-through the development and enforcement of Water Quality Standards, Congress needs to take action to develop programs that deal with lake pollution. Such programs must focus first on stimulating and assisting residents of inland lake communi- ties and local governmental bodies and agencies to undertake cooperative plan- ning and organized activities to bring about broad understanding and constructive local action programs of care, development and utilization of each inland lake as a natural resource and community asset. Secondly, a research program aimed at improving pollution control technology as it applies to lakes needs to be under- taken. Only alter the Federal Government has been assured that the for~es which originally brought about the deterioration of a lake have been eliina ed and alter it has been shown that a local lake community is organized to deal with lake management on long-term basis, should the Federal Government assist in financing specific remedial measures to improve the quality of a lake. I. THE HURON RIVER WATERSHED OOUNOTL The Huron River Watershed Council is an organization of local governments in- terested in promoting the wise and orderly use of the Huron River as a natural resource. The Council was organized in 1965 under Public Act 253 (1964) of the State of Michigan, which provides the legal basis for representative water planning and management agencies. The Council replaced the Huron River Watershed In- tergovernmental Committee which was established in 1958. The Council has served as a model for INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERA- TION and has been cited in many of the national information media, including The Big Water Fight by the League of Women Voters Educational Fund and in tw-o filmstrips on Water Management distributed by University Media, Inc. The Council has given top priority to the development of a demonstration pro- grain for the coordination of public and private forces on inland lake and shore- land management. II. TIlE PROBLEM IN THE HURON RIVER BASIN The 353 natural and artificial lakes of the upper Huron River Basin constitute one of the major water resources in the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Totaling nearly 24,000 acres, these lakes comprise about 4 percent of the total area of the 1-luron River Watershed. The shores and surrounding areas of these lakes are increasingly being used as year-round homesites for people who can commute to work in the Pontiac, Ypsilanti-Ann AiThor, or even the Wayne County areas, on the major new expressways. At the same time, this area of the Huron River Basin has a potential for a wide range of recreational opportunities for the rapidly expanding regional population with more money, leisure time and mobility. 1. Management needs The increased utilization of inland lakes and shoreland for private homesites and the pressures for more usage for public recreation are creating critical problems. With a few exceptions, most of the suitable lake frontage and shore land has already been developed or is designated for development (platted). Little or no regulation in the past has resulted in parcels of land that are often not large enough to accommodate the dwelling, water-well, septic tank and (Train field, automobile parking and reasonable separation from neighboring dwellings. In many cases the natural beauty of the lake and shoreline has been destroyed. Health hazards are a constant threat due to the inadequacy or im- proper operation of individual waste water disposal systems. Increased public recreational use has brought new problems to the area. Public recreational use of the lakes and shoreland is not always compatible with the private use of the same areas by local homeow-ners. At peak use periods there are conflicts for the use of the lake surface between fishermen, swimmers, water ski- ers, high-speed boaters, skin divers and others. The public shoreland support areas, such as public fishing sites and launching areas, are often unable to handle the large numbers of people wishing to use them. PAGENO="0668" 660 Overcrowding and undesirable development on the shorelines of inland lakes will eventually lead to lower property values and increased costs of living which can offset the advantages of lakeside living. If the overcrowding and unplanned development is allowed to continue, there are two serious and inevitable consequences. (a) Lakes will become more polluted and some of the extremely slow natural changes detrimental to recreation that take place will be accelerated (eutrophication). (b) Since the lake-areas are located in the "upper" watershed, recrea- tional opportunities downstream will be limited by pollution from the up- stream areas. Like many Natural Resource Problems, the situation in the inland lakes of the Upper Huron River is complex because- Public and Private property rights are involved. Local resident and region-wide recreational usage is involved. Zoning and other regulatory responsibilities are within the jurisdictions of a number of different local governmental units. There exists a number of property owner organizations with different objectives and levels of effectiveness. Considerable action and control undertaken today must be justified in terms of future needs. The establishment of water quality standards, authorized usage, protec- tion of public health and conservation of fish and wildlife involve Local, State and Federal Bureaus, Agencies and Budgets. 2. Focus and rationale The lack of adequate coordination of public and private forces in dealing with all aspects of inland lake and shoreland problems is the major concern. There has been a tendency to overemphasize the separation of public from private decision- making. Actually, there should probably be a great increase of intermingling of public and private interest, influence and effort. Private decisions should be made within a publicly established framework of goals and objectives while the public decisions must always relate to citizen interests and concerns. More adequate coordination of both public and private forces must be brought about by improving communication and utilizing available community and in- dividual capabilities. Decisions made by the public agencies concerning manage- ment and control of inland lakes and shoreland need to be based on a thorough understanding of the specific needs and desires of the citizens as well as on the best available technical information and counsel on water and land use. Local, regional, state and federal mangement agencies, no matter how special- ized their responsibility, need more current and more complete information as a major part of their planning and management effort. Private citizens, on the other hand, while providing information to the govern- mental agencies, could utilize information regarding planning proposals and liroblem analysis as a guide to their own individual decisions and efforts. Like farmers, the homeowners in the lake area have a great deal of individual re- sponsibility for land and water use management decisions. Generally they operate and maintain their own water and sewer systems and are also responsible for the management and upkeep of a fairly large parcel of land. A sound strategy and program of coordination and communication for coopera- tively dealing with inland lake problems would complement and enhance the strategy of regulation and enforcement now being pursued so vigorously in th~ federal and state agency programs and even by local zoning boards. This inland lake management, to be of maximum effectiveness will probably call for cooperative area-wide effort. III. MAJOR GUIDELINES FOR INLAND LAKE AND SHORELAND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS A. Determine what facts are essential as a foundation for sound understand- ing and constructive action for the protection and improvement of the lake, the lakeshore and the lakeside community. B. Determine the nature of the attitudes, degree of concern and the willingness to become involved, of the lake area residents, in regard to the current condition and the future of the lakes an:d the lakeside communities in the area. C. Accumulate, evaluate, and organize the relevant information on current problems of inland lake deterioration and alternate solutions to the problems, as PAGENO="0669" 661 a stimulus and aid to constructive private individual or group effort and mean- ingful governmental support and action. D. Create services to assist inland lake communities in local efforts to halt the deterioration of the lakes and shorelands and establish a sound program of improvement. Very truly yours, JEROME K. FULTON, Eaeeutive ~S~ecretary, Huron River Watershed Council. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress in passing legislation take no action to limit the ability of other levels of government to meet their own responsibilities. In this regard, the State of Michigan has recently passed a bond issue to finance a full-scale attack on pollution throughout the State. This ap- proach is based on the assumption that the Federal government would abide by its promises in recent Acts to provide funding and planning assistance. In November 1966 the Congress provided for State or local prefinancing of the federal share of eligible projects and on this basis, the State of Michigan has, through its bonding proposal, made a full-scale commitment to assume the federal share of projects until federal funds become available at some future point. This provision has enabled states to make long range plans. It has freed them from the yearly delay and uncertainty involved in the federal budgeting and appropriations processes. It has enabled them to take immediate action on impor- tant projects without the delays and possible cutbacks in federal funds during any given year. The bill before your committee would change this provision and would signifi- cantly contract the span and variety within which state and local governments can work to solve their individual pollution problems. At the same time, the bill before the Committee would also exclude from federal coverage all small commnu- nities of under 125,000 persons, In fact, it is the small communities that have the scarcest revenue resources to undertake major water treatment systems and, at the same time, it is these communities which are presently most likely to leave their wastes untreated. To exclude them from the coverage of federal programs would be a disasterous mistake and would result in further delay in the nation's efforts to control water pollution. Another factor to which your Committee should give full consideration is the pollution ~aused by activities of the federal government itself. Until the gov- ernment's activities are as example-setting as its rhetoric, there will be little en- couragemnent for local governments and private industry to take action. One serious example of government created pollution in the Lake Erie area is the disposal of dredging wastes from the industrial docks on the Detroit River and the Rouge River. This drodge material has been dumped into Lake Erie for many years and is contributing greatly to the pollution and eutrophication of that dying lake. Clearly such action must stop and I have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department in urging alternate dis- posal of the wastes on dry land. The citizens and communities bordering Lake Erie have expressed their concern about this serious problem and are working hard to find alternative sites for dumping. This is only one example of government action which results in pollution. Many others exist, and your Committee should give full consideration to ways through which coordination can be attained on the federal government level to halt all such pollution and tO bring the federal government up to the standards now being proposed for private industry and communities. Mr. Chairman, we all recognize water pollution as one of the most serious and pressing problems facing our nation today. If the nation is to be fit for habitation in future generations, we must take action now to halt the killing of our lakes and streams and their vast resources of plant and fish life. If the nation is to maintain pleasant recreational ar~as, we must take action now to clean up our lakes before the process of eutrophication has, made them uninviting. If we are to have fit water for human consumption, we must take action befor~ it is tao late. I commend your Committee for its attention to this problem and urge, you to take appropriate action to assure future generations of Americans the same vast natural ~vater `resources which were given to our generation. PAGENO="0670" 662 PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, April 29, 1968. H.R. 14000 (S. 2760)-Amend Federal Water Pollution Control Act Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: We wish to associate ourselves with the testimony of Ralph E. Casey, President of American Merchant Marine Institute on the above bill given before your Committee on April 24, 1968. This bill is identical to the Senate-passed S. 2760. We request this letter be placed in the record. Our views are fully concurred in by Pacific Maritime Association, whose in- terest lies in the personnel aspects of this bill. The American Merchant Marine Institute's statement pointed out and we concur, that so long as the Senate Committee Report (S. Report No. 917) on 5. 2760 interprets Section 19(b) of the bill to mean that it is a violation of law `to dis- charge or spill oil regardless of fan it, and since the test of "gross negligence and willful discharge" is being removed in HR. 14000 by repealing the present law (1924 Oil Pollution Act), there exists in Section 19(b) a serious inequity and ambiguity as to what degree of fault constitutes a violation. Section 19(b) should be, therefore, amended to clearly provide gross negligence or willful misconduct as the test for a violation. Alternately, the definition of "discharge" in Section 19(a) could `be amended to include gross negligence as part of the definition. This will remove the ambiguity between Section 19(b) and Section 19(c) which latter Section sets up a criminal fine of $2,500.00 for oil spifls created by willful viola- tion of Section 19(b). It will also clarify the kind and degree of violation for which civil penalties can be levied in Section 19(d). As Section 19(d) now reads, such civil penalties and libels are not assessable for a willful violation as in Section 19(c) but for the ambiguously worded violation described in Section 19(b), which as noted above, the Senate Report interprets to be a "without fault" liability. A further reason for amending Section 19(b) is its impact upon suspension or revocation of Coast Guard licenses for officers aboard `a vessel adjudged to be in violation. It would be the height of injustice to authorize Coast Guard in Section 19(g) to revoke a master's or engineer's license for being on duty on a vessel adjudged without fault to be in violation. We feel the vulnerability of a licensed officer's livelihood should not rest upon such a remote involvement with the violation. Finally, we share fully the apprehension of American Merchant Marine Insti- tute that a vessel's ability to limit liability in a pollution situation is circum- scribed by the language in Section 19(e) where it restricts limitations only to "acts of God" and specifically removes all other criteria for limitation by the words "notwithstanding any other provision by law". These words should be deleted. Limitation of vessel liability in the Admiralty Statutes (Section 197 et seq. of USC 46) is a keystone element encouraging investment of capital in U.S-flag shipping. To sweep away such limitation by discliaiming it in H.R. 14000 would be a step backward into' abyss of economic frustration which already beckons too many U.S. shipowners. We urge the adoption of the above amendments to HR. 14000 and S. 2760. Sincerely yours, RALPH B. DEWEY, President. DEPABTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C. Ma~ij 3, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chafr'man, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: My letter of April 26 reported comments by the British, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Embassies on behalf of their Governments con- cerning H.R. 15906 and 5. 2760, both bills concerning oil pollution wh'ich are now under consideration by your Committee. We have now been informed by the Em- bassy of the Netherlands that the Netherlands Government shares generally the views of the other four Governments concerning these `bills, in particular, their views with respect to unilateral action by the United States on liability for oil pol- lution in advance of the results of IMOO consideration and the concepts included PAGENO="0671" 663 in the subject bills of absolute liability and unlimited liability for certain dis- charges of oil. The Embassy of the Netherlands has asked that these views by conveyed to your Committee. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed for the information of your Committee are copies of comments on H.R. 15006 and 5. 2760 received by the Department of State from the Embassies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The British Em- bassy also made similar comments orally under instructions from the United Kingdom Government. All of the four Governments draw attention to the con- sideration of liability for oil pollution now taking place internationally in the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization and three of them comment on the concepts included in the subject bills of absolute liability and unlimited liability for certain discharges of oil. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. DANISH EMBASSY, Washington, D.C., April22, 1968. The Danish Embassy is instructed to express to the United States Government the following points of view concerning the pending U.S. bills HR 15906 and S 2760, known as "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1968". (1) The effect of the bills would be to impose on shipowners an absolute liability for the total cost of cleaning up pollution caused by spillage of oil from their vessels. In the opinion of the Danish Government such a provision, without possibilities for taking into account special circumstances in the incidents of spillage, would be unusual, if not unparallelled, and would place on shipowners a burden that could be unjustified. (2) Further the Danish Government finds it particularly unfortunate that the United States Government should be contemplating this step at a time when the whole question of the liability of shipowners for oil pollution is under interna- tional consideration and study in IMCO and in CMI. Also, at the meeting of IMCO in November its legal committee endorsed the view that accidents of the same character and their consequences should be governed by the same prin- ciples and rules, irrespective of whether they take place on the high seas or in territorial waters. In view of this it is difficult to reconcile this opinion, which the U.S. Delegation presumably shared, with an action that would anticipate the outcome of the IMCO study. (3) Finally, the Danish Government emphasizing its general opinion that unilateral legislation by any one government on matters of international concern can only cause serious interruption of international shipping practices wishes to submit that the pending U.S. legislation be postponed until the studies presently considered by the above-mentioned international organizations have been con- cluded and the possibilities for reaching an international agreement have been fully explored. ROYAL NORWEGIAN EMBASSY, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1968. Some of the provisions of I-JR. 15906 and S. 2760 have created some concern to the Norwegian Government, especially the provisions concerning the civil liability of shipowners. It is the understanding of the Norwegian Government that the above-mentioned bills are aiming at imposing on shipowners an absolute liability (with exception only in cases connected with "Acts of God") to the total cost of cleaning up pollution caused by spillage of oil from vessels. This unlimited liability will impose on shipowners a burden that could be considerable. PAGENO="0672" 664 The Norwegian Government think it is unfortunate that the United States Government should be contemplating unilateral legislation at a time when the whole question of liability of shipowners for oil pollution is under international studies in Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Comité Maritime Internationale is at present carrying out a study concerning oil pollu- tion for IMCO. As IMCO proceeds rapidly in this field, and these problems prob- ably will be clarified within this year, the Norwegian Government hopes that the United States Government do not put into force amendments in its national legislation, until the result of the IMCO study is known. Norway, with its long coast, does not underestimate the damage which might be caused by oil pollution. However, the Norwegian Government recognize that the answer to this problem lies in unified international rather than in unilateral action. ROYAL SWEDISH EMBASSY, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1968. Having taken note of the Bills in Congress (HR 15906 and 5 2760) on water pollution caused by spillage of oil from vessels, the Swedish Government wishes to express the hope that no action will be taken by the United States which might hinder a decision soon on global regulations of the questions now being dealt with in this connection within the IMCO. The Swedish Government also wishes to draw attention to the current consid- erations within, i.e., the IMCO concerning liability for oil pollution. The Swedish Government is anxious to have a solution soon of the above mentioned questions and hopes that this opinion is also shared by the United States. OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, May 20, 1968. HON. GEORGE H. FALLeN, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: I am submitting for the Nassau County Planning Commission of New York, their statement on water pollution. They would like for the statement to be made a part of the permanent record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, ANTHONY MAZZ000HI, Director, Citizenship-Legislative Department. STATEMENT BY THE NASSAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Nassau County Planning Commission wishes to go on record supporting favorable action by the Public Works Committee in reporting out 5. 2760. We address ourselves particularly `to Section 19(b) which would make it unlawful, except under certain circumstances, as defined in this section, to discharge oil into the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines of the United States. The need for clarifying and strengthening the power to act by `the Secretary of `the Interior against those vessel owners who wilfully or through negligence pollute the waterways was called for by the 1967 Report to Congress, "Wastes from Watereraft", (Senate Document No. 48, 90th Congress). The Oil Pollution Act has not been amended since 1924, and yet our United States boat population has grown to well over 8 million to say nothing of the unregistered boats and those which enter daily into the waters around Long Island. We speak strongly for `this bill which has passed the Senate so *as to have an effective weapon against further deterioration of the valuable waters both on the north and `south shores of Nassau County. The 21/a million people of Long Island alone depend on these waters for recreation, swimming, fishing, sailing, as well as the commercial fisherman, who `depend on the continued high quality of the marine environment. According to a recent survey prepared by John I. Thompson & Co. of Wash- ington, D.C. for the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering & Resources, called "A Perspective of Regional and State Marine Environmental Activities", PAGENO="0673" 665 over 200,000 members of the New York State labor force "are directly employed in marine environment activities". Statistics such as these are not yet available for Nassau County alone, but there can be little doubt that a subsantial portion of this 200,000 figure are here on Long Island. The report also points out that local governments have historically been faced with the problems of operating pollution aibaitement facilities. However, the small units of government cannot deal effectively with the growing threat to pollution of the navigable waters which are under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government. The survey mentioned above further reports that 300 of the 2,258 miles of New York shorelines are polluted to a significant extent. This federal legislation before your Committee, 5. 2907 would be an essential tool to safeguard against the loss of more of our irreplaceable waters. Ex- perience has demonstrated that under the 1924 statute, voluntary compliance by ves;sel owners has not been satisfactory. Safeguards are written into this bill to protect the boat owner from arbita:ry standards being set `by the Secretary of the Interior, prior to the penalties `being `levied `by the Secretary. We thank the Committee Chairman, Mr. George Fallen, for the `privilege of inserting `this statement into the `record, and look forward to swift affirmative action by the Committee in reporting favorably to the House. Respectfully submitted. FRANKLIN BEAR. Chairman, Nassau County Planning Commission, Mineola, N.Y. DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, May 2, 1968. lion. JOHN A. BLATNIK, Rayburn house Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: On April 24th, while w-aiting to testify before your Committee, I listened with interest to testimony presented by the American Petroleum Institute on proposed legislation known as the Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1908. One of the major points made by the API was `to the effect `that the new au- thori,ties that would be given to the Secretary of Interior to control oil `pollution should be exclusive and ti-mt the oil companies `should not be faced with additional regulations imposed `by other agencies. A rel'ated point, as you will recall, was th:a,t the authority of the Secretairy should apply on'ly to oil `pollution from vessels and should not include shore installnstions. I am sympathetic with the logic of the Secretary of Interior having exclusive authority over oil pollution `problem's emanating from ships. I am also in agree- ment that `there is no need to extend his regulatory authocriities directly to s'hore facilities. If the Secretary were to become involved in regulation of shore facilities it would cause problems in this river `ba's'in and elsewhere. As you know, the Delaware River Basin Commission has recently adopted water quality standard's that a,p'ply `to all kinds of pollutants, including oil. Less well-known is the fact that the Oominiss'ion also carries out a project review function which covers major industrial facilities, the con~struc'tion or modification of which might have a subs,tantial eff~c't on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. This projec't review function covers a ve'ry wide range of industrial and pu~bl.ic activity including `shore facilities relating to the petroleum industry, and it l'S focused on the protection of other wa~te'r rhsources values againet possible incompatible ef- fects. When the Commission reviews a p'ropo~sed project it looks at it from the point of view of such values as protecting ground water `recharge area's, prevent- ing flood plain encroachments, protecting wildlife refuges, as well as possible effects on water quality. It is important to us `th;a.t petroleum refl.ne'rie's and other shore facilities a,ssociate'd with the petroleum indus'try `re'main su'bjec't to this review authority `by the Commission along with other industrial and municipal activities affecting water resources. Accordingly, I would like to urge your Committee to consider these aspects in the final version of this proposed legislation. If it is imperative that the authority be extended to shore Installations as well, then I would urge that the Secretary's prerogatives not be made exclusive. If this is not done, then we face the likeli- hood that the petroleum industry would use this new legislation as a basis for 94-376-6S-----43 PAGENO="0674" 666 claiming exemption from the project review and water quality control authori- ties already established by this Commission for the Delaware Basin. This would be a very unfavorable consequence. If I can provide any further information or extend any of the points in this letter I will be glad to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, JAMES F. WRIGHT. STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OF VARIOUS DREDGING COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATIONS S. 2760 Section 3 of this bill relating to oil pollution requires clarification. The new Section 19 of the Water Pollution Control Act, as passed by the Senate, would in effect prohibit dredging operations in connection with projects for the im- provement of navigable waters or construction of public works authorized by Acts of Congress. Senate Report No. 917, which accompanied the bill, recognized the necessity of maintaining the Nation's waterways for economic growth and national security. The Senate Public Works Committee Report also indicated that since "dredging involves oil which was previously discharged", this subject should be treated separately. Thus, it would appear that the Senate did not intend for dredge spoil to be subject to Subsection 19(b) or for dredging operations to be subject to the criminal or civil penalties set forth in Subsections 19(c), 19(d), and 19(e). Definition of oil The problem is created by the term "oil" as defined by Subsection 19(a) (1). The use of the phrase "oil mixed with other matter" was apparently intended to control "waste materials discharged from shore installations [which] contain various quantities of oil mixed in with the material". But the bill as reported out of the committee failed to distinguish, by definition, "oil mixed with dredge ma- terials" from "oil mixed with waste materials discharged by shore installations". This deficiency in the Senate bill can be rectified by amending Subsection 19(a)(1) to read: "(1) `oil' means oil of any kind or in any form, [other than dredge spoil,] in- cluding but not limited to, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with other [waste] material". The intent of the Senate amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act, as stated in Report No. 917, was "to provide an effective deterrent against oil spills whether these spills emanate from a vessel or from a shore installation". The Senate recognized that the primary source,of oil pollution is caused by oil spillage "during the transportation of oil" and oil discharged from various shore facilities such as "storage tanks, petroleum, industrial plants, and pipelines". There was no a~pparent intention to prohibit dredging operations or to inter- fere with or impair public projects necessary to maintain the navigable waters of the United States to to prevent industry from maintaining or improving their dock facilities. If dredging operations were to be prohibited, restricted or cur- tailed, the economic consequences to the country would be catastrophic. Trade, commerce and industry in the United States would be paralyzed. Dredging Abater Pollutioa it is important for this committee to realize that dredging is a tool for abate- ment of pollution. It is not a cause or source of pollution. There is no oil spillage during the dredging process, except possibly a minor exudence from existing sedimentation in the water being dredged. Dredging is the only available means for removing polluted materials from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and harbors. Much has been said about dredging and dredge disposal in connection with water pollution. But, there is no competent evidence to support the presumption that dredging operations adversely affect the quality of water. Tests conducted by the Government also show that after a period of time polluted material de- posited in the Great Lakes disposal areas are no longer polluted and that fauna is healthier and appears to be more thriving than in adjacent lake bottoms.1 1 See testimony Gen. Wm. F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, before the Senate Appropria- tions Subcommittee on Public Works (1968) relating to "Pollution Tests Near Dredge Disposal Areas." PAGENO="0675" 667 Dredging reduces pollution. The dredging process adds oxygen to the polluted materials by exposing the materials through agitation thereby enabling nature to dissolve and purify the materials. Any effort to discourage or lessen dredging will not only impede pollution abatement but will stifle the economic growth and development of inland ports. Whatever effect the dredging process may have on sedimentation or pollution, by spillage, leakage or dumping of dredged materials, it is so infinitesimal that it is incapable of being measured. On the other hand, the benefits to be derived from dredging are so great arid the damages so slight, if any, that the conse- quences of not dredging completed overwhelms any other consideration. Subsection 19 Would Make It Unlawful to Dredge Under a literal interpretation of Subsection 19(b), the Secretary of Interior is given the power, for example, to abolish or prohibit the use of authorized dumping areas in the Great Lakes, established under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1905, [33 U.S.C. 419], for maintenance dredge spoil. The Chief of Engineers recently testified, before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Works, that the costs of alternate methods of disposal in the Great Lakes "would be from three to five times the present costs". But, actually this is only one standard for measurement. The overall impact would be much greater since in many instances there is no way to dispose of dredged materials other than by dumping them in the authorized lake disposal areas. Thus, if this bill was passed by the House, in its present form, it will be impossible in many cases to maintain the navigable waterways or harbors of the Great Lakes or elsewhere. The Secretary of Interior would also have the implied power, under Subsection 19(b), to shut down dredging operations whenever there was a trace of oil in the water around the dredging plant or equipment even though the discharge was harmless. The contractor would always be confronted with the burden of proving that his operations were not the cause of the discharge before he could continue his work. The cost of doing business under these conditions would become prohibitive. Present Critical Situation At the present time private dredging work in the Great Lakes and other areas has, in effect, been stopped or shutdown because the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has failed or refused to agree to the issuance of permits by the Corps of Engineers. As a result, railroads, steamship lines, oil companies, steel firms, and other large industrial concerns have been unable to maintain their dock facilities for loading and unloading cargo. This condition threatens to unduly interfere with the economic development of inland ports. The situation is critical now. If this bill goes through, without excluding dredge spoil or dredging operations, all dredging work would be seriously jeopardized. Subsection 19(k) Subsection 19(k) merely contributes to the present chaotic situation. Any further regulation of dredge spoil or dredging operations should be deferred until the results of the Pilot Study authorized by Congress last year are available. This subsection should be deleted if the definition of "oil" is changed as herein- before suggested. E~visting Legislation There is already an overabundance of pollution legislation. As a result of the hodgepodge of such legislation, confusion is rampant, no one really knows what effect if any most of this legislation will have on eliminating or reducing pollu- tion, millions of dollars are being spent with no assurance of any reasonable benefits; and at the present time an administrative paralysis has set in because of the overlapping and conflicting responsibilities and duties between responsible federal agencies. Time should be allowed for full implementation of existing legislation before passing new legislation. The lack of expertise in the field of pollution is best illustrated by a recent article in Time Magazine [March 29, 1968] dealing with the Torrey Canyon disaster. This article stated: "Resorting to emergency techniques much the same as those used recently in Puerto Rico, British cleanup squads sprayed detergents along the coast of Cornwall after the tanker Torrey Canyon went aground last year. Scientists now report that the detergents did more damage to marine life than did the oil. PAGENO="0676" 668 After months of study, Plymouth Laboratory Director J. E. Smith and his colleagues calculated that thousands of sea birds, died from being coated with oil or from swallowing it. But except for the rosy-footed summer tourist, few other shore or sea creatures were seriously bothered by the oil. The detergents, however, killed a significant amount of sea life and seriously upset the ecology iii many coastal areas. m * *~, 2 This study bears our Senator Muskie's remark during the 1907 Water Pollution Hearings, when he said: "* * the committee must give cognizance to the need for research into methods of removal of oil * * * while at the same time not using techniques which secure the malady but kill the patient." Oil Pollution Act of 1924 The poiat was made in the Senate Hearings `That the Oil Pollution Act was made enforceable by a word change in the Senate passed definition of the word "discharge". Therefore, 5. 2760 is also "designed to correct that fault". This Committee should scrutinize the proposed revisions before abolishing the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, as amended [33 U.S.C. § 432-434]. The Secretary of Interior's Report to the President, February 1968, states that the ommission of shore-based facilities from the 1966 Amendment to the Oil Pollution Act is "critically significant". If this is so, the ommission can be easily cured by amending the Act to add "shore installations" as defined by 5. 2760. How-ever, the Secretary of Interior's recommendation to delete the "grossly negligent or willful" criterion of the Act is a much graver matter. The argument made is that the present statute is difficult to enforce. This may or may not be the case. But, the fact is that the Department of Justice, based on testimony set forth in the Senate Hearings on Water Pollution (1967), has not attempted to prosecute any cases under the 1960 Amen'thnent to the Act. Thus, there have been no court cases on this question. Obviously any prosecutor w-ould like tO have his job made as easy as possible. But, here we are dealing with a federal penal statute that is no longer confined to "any vesse,l using oil as fuel for the generation of propulsion power, or any vessel carrying or having oil thereon in excess of that necessary for its lubricating requirements", as provided for in the original Oil Pollution Act of 1924 [33 U.S.C. 433]. The 1966 Amendment changed the Act to apply to "any boat or vessel" upon `the navigable waters of the United States. If the "grossly negligent or willful" criteria is deleted any owner or operator, for example, of an outboard motor boat using the navigable waters of the United States would be subject, upon entering into such water, to an automatic conviction for committing a federal felony under Subsection 19: (c), or at the very least face being convicted of a federal misdemeanor under Subsection 19(d) of 5. 2760. This bill provides a means for wholesale convictions of all citizens or business entities using the waterways regardless of criminal `culpability. The stated penalties are exceedly harsh [up to a year in prison]. To impose such penalties as provided for in Subsection 19, without the "grossly negligent or willful", criteria would be unconscionable. `With respect to the alleged difficulty of enforcing the existing legislation, it is interesting to note that the Secretary *of Interior has still not promulgated or issued regulations under the 1966 Amendment [33 U.S.C. 433 (c)] relative `to permissible quantities of discharge of oil from boats or vessels, or relating to the removal or cost of removal of oil from the navigable waters or the adjoin- ing shorelines of the United States. This may explain the reason for the alleged difficulties encountered by the Government in enforcing the 1966 Amendment `to the Oil Pollution Act of 1924. 5. 2760 as presently written, when considered together with the Refuse Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 407] as judicially interpreted, will make it unlawful *to drop anything but "pure water" into a river or lake which are part of the navigable waterways of the United States. This would be true even though the discharge was `harmless or had no deleterious effect on the waterways. Refuse Act of 1899 This Act made it unlawful for any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any kind, or any shore installation to discharge into the navigable water of the 2Torrcmj Canyon Pollution and Marine Life, a report by the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine ~io1ogical Association of the United Kingdom, edited by 3'. E. Smith, Cambridge University Press [1968]. PAGENO="0677" 669 United States, or any of its tributaries, any refuse matter. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 384 U.S. 224, 16 L ed 2d 492, 86 S. Ct. 1427 (1905), opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Douglas, broadly and liberally con- strued the term "refuse" to include "oil" of any kind whether waste or useful, and to encompass "all foreign substances and pollutants", apart from those "flowing from streets and sewers." The Department of Justice, during 1967 Hearings on Water Pollution by the Senate Public Works Committee, acknowledged that "vessel-caused oil pollutions can be prosecuted under that act", based on the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. But, they contended that this was not a "complete solution" since the violator was not obligated to clear up his spill. The obvious answer to this contention is for the Department of Justice, in appropriate cases, to file an action under the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, as amended to clean up the spillage. The Act, as amended, should be subject to judicial interpretation prior to being repealed by Congress merely because of an untested belief that it may be difficult to enforce. Certainly the Senate bill in its present form would not provide a "complete solution" relative to enforcement of the Act. Not unless mass conviction of all users of the waterways would satisfy this requirement. The proposed Act, as written, would be impossible to police or enforce since anyone using the water- ways would technically be guilty of violating its provisions. Recommendation A common sense approach is required. The answer is simple. If the "grossly negligent or willful" criteria is to be eliminated then it is necessary to revert to the scope of vessels used in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, prior to the 1966 Amendment, or to vessels carrying oil as c.argo. The above modification to the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, as amended, [33 U.S.C 433] together with the insertion of the term "shore installations" would cover the primary sources of polution for which S. 2760 was intended to proscribe. HR. 14000 Should this Committee decide to recommend the repeal of the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 rather than amend existing legislation as proposed above, then it is suggested that the following language of Subsection 19(k) of HR. 14000 be retained: "(k) Nothing contained in this section shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit operations in connection with projects for the improvement of navigable waters or construction of public works, authorized by Acts of Congress. Further, this section shall not be construed to authorize the issuance of permits by any other Federal agency for disposal of dredged materials from such authorized projects. (Whenever the disposition of such materials into the navigable waters of the United States is proposed by any department or agency of the United States, or any public or private agency under Federal permit or license, the Federal depart- ment or agency involved shall first consult with the Secretary of the Interior with a view to the prevention of pollution of such waters by oil. The Secretary of the Army in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior shall, within one year after enactment of this Act, develop guidelines governing disposal of such dredged matters."] In view of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Interior, dated July 13, 1967, the third sentence of Subsection 19(k) should be deleted. It is also urged that the fourth sentence of this Subsection be deleted pending the results of the Pilot Study programs here- tofore authorized by Congress. The definition of "oil" [~ 19(a) (1)] should be revised as suggested in the foregoing commentary of 5. 2760. HR. 15006 It is urged that Subsection 21(a) be amended to read: "SEc. 21(a) As used in this section, the term `matter' means any substance of any description or origin, other than oil [or dredge spoil], which, when dis- charged from a vessel or short installation into any waters in substantial quan- tities, presents, in the judgment of the Secretary, an imminent and substantial hazard to the public health or welfare." One final observation. It is ironic, but one of the absurd results of the proposed legislation when considered in conjunction with 5. 2760 and HR. 14000, is that PAGENO="0678" 670 the owner or operator of a vessel who removes a discharge of oil by detergents, or other means, pursuant to the provisions of S. 2760 and I-LR. 14000, can be held liable under HR. 15906 for introducing hazard substances into the waters. See Professor Smith's report on the "Torrey Canyon" studies on pollution and marine life, supra. lIE. 13852 We urge the defeat of this bill to prohibit or abolish dumping in authorized dumping areas in the Great Lakes established under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1905, or any other Act, for the reasons hereinbefore stated. Respectfully submitted. JoHN A. DOWNS, President, Great Lakes Dredge c~ Dock Co., Chicago, Ill. MAYLIN H. GREASER, President, American Dredging Co., Philadelphia, Pa. E. D. WATTLES, President, DunMar c~ sullivan Dredging Co., Detroit, Mich. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RIvERS & HARBORS CONTRACTORS, Baltimore, Md. RIVER & HARBOR IMPROvEMENT ASSOCIATION, Milwaukee, Wis. SOUTHEASTERN DREDGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Chesapeake, Va. GULF COAST DREDGING ASSOCIATION, New Orleans, La. MAY 3, 1968 STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Association of Manu- facturers, a voluntary association of business and industrial enterprises, both large and small, located in every state. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on HR. 15906, the proposed "Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act of 1968" and on S. 2760. H.R. 15906 We begin with a discussion of H.R. 15906, and note that, contrary to opinion in some quarters, this measure is not designed solely to avoid a repeat of the unfortunate consequences which followed the accident involving the Torrey Canyon when large quantities of oil cargo were dispersed into open waters from this ship. Shore installations are specifically covered by the provisions which would become Section 21 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. And most importantly, here the thrust of the legislation is not to control oil emission, but rather the discharge of "matter" defined as "any substance of any description or origin, other than oil, which, when discharged from a vessel or shore installation into any waters in substantial quantities, presents, in the judgment of the Sec- retary, `an imminent and substantial hazard to `the public health or welfare." (Em'~hasis added.) Since the bill includes manufacturing and industrial plants in its definition of "shore installation," this Association has a direct interest in the s'ubject matter. Proposed Section 21(b) would provide th'at "The owner or operator of any vessel or shore installation from which matter is discharged into the navigable waters `of the United States or into the waters of the contiguous zone shall immediately ameliorate the effects of discharged matter under the direction of the Secretary or his delegate. If such owner or operator falls to so act, the Secretary may ameliorate the effects of such discharged matter, and such owner or operator, and, as `appropriate, the vessel and shore installation shall be liable, not withstanding any other provision `of law, to the United States f'or the full amount `of the actual cost incurred by the United States under this subsection: Provided, That there shall be no such liability where such `discharge was due to an act `of God. These provisions would give the Secretary of the Interior sweeping powers with no apparent restraints or cautionary safeguards. There appears to be no PAGENO="0679" 671 administrative hearing `in connection with the decision by the Secretary that a discharge of "matter" presents an imminent and substantial hazard to the public health or welfare. Likewise, there is no administrative hearing provided for prior to a decision by the Secretary to undertake amelioration of the effects of the discharged matter. The effect of `these provisions is to impose a very heavy liability based upon broad and undefined language. The `term "pUibllC welfare" is so broad and vague that it could be used `to justify almost any judgment made by the Secretary. In addition, the phrase "ameliorate the effects" is undefined and perhaps incapa:ble of definition. It `is conceivable that the duty imposed may be impos- sible of performance at any cost. The liability of `the owner or operator would appear to be measured by the `amount of effort the Secretary decides to under- take and the subsequent cost `thereof. If such `a law could withstand an attack based upon charges of vagueness and lack of due process, the properiety of enacting such a measure is, nevertheless, dubious. We note that liability attaches `to the owner or operator, whether negligent or no't, under the terms of subsection 21(b) in every case where matter is dis- charged from a vessel or sh'ore installation, except where such discharge was due to an act of God. We feel that su'eh strict liability is unwarranted and fails to take into account the possibility of `ac'ts of vandalism, sabotage, and negligence of `other parties. Subsection 21(d) provides that "there is hereby authorized to be appropriated t'o a revolving fund established in the Treasury under `this Act, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions `of this section and section 20(i) of this Act. Any funds received `by the United `States i'n payment of any actual costs incurred by the Secretary under said sections and penalties collected for any violation of section 20 of this Act shall be deposited into said fund for such purpose. All sums `in said fund shall remain available until expen'ded." We ques- ti'on the desirability `of earmarking any pa'iiticifiar receipts during `this `time of severe fiscal problems. The proliferation of special funds `and revolving funds does `not contribute to orderly government processes. Inasmuch as the American Petroleum Institute has suggested various amend- ments `dealing with oil discharges from vessels, we will not discuss this aspect of HR. 15906. On `the basis `of the foregoing, we respectfully urge th'a't the Com- mittee n'ot report the sections of H.R. 15906 here discussed. S. 2760 S. 2760, in part, also deals with pollution of water by `oil. This bill would amend `the Federal Water Pollution Control A'ct so as to insert a new Section 19 entitled "Oil Pollution Control." The term `soil" would be defined so `as to include other matter w'hen mixed `with oil, apparently in the most minute pro- portion, since the definition rea'ds "oil of any kind or in `any form, includthg, but not limited to, fuel, sludge, oil refuse, an'd oil mixed with other matter." As in H.R. 15906, the term "shore installation" is defined to include "manufacturing or industrial plant," but here it goes on `to include `the phra'se "which is used in the handling or processing of oi'l and which is located ;~fl or `adjacent to the navigable waters of `the Uni'ted States." it is not clear from the bill or the Senate Com- mittee Report whether this is intended to include manufacturing or industrial plants which use oil for `lubricating purposes. Since the use of oil f'or such pur- poses is practically universal, this becomes a `highly significant question. The Report of the Senate Public Works Committee on S. 2700 refers to "petroleum industrial plants." Owing to the fact that "navigable waters of the United States" are defined as "all inland waters navigable in fact," it is conceivable this `bill as now written could be interpreted as being `applicable to every U.S. manufacturing plant located on a stre'am or river. Proposed Section 19(b) provides `that "Except in case `of emergency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as otherwise `permitted by regulations `prescribe'd by `the Secretary under this see- ti'on, it is unlawful to discharge or permit the discharge of oil by `a'ny method, means, or manner into or upon `the navigable waters `of the United S'tates or adjoining shorelines of the United States." A'ny owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation who willfully violated this provision could be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year or by both for each offense. Thus, it appears `that a manufacturer who i's treating his PAGENO="0680" 672 wastewater with a control facility approved by a state water po11ut~on coi~t.ro1 agency and discharging the treated wastewater into navigable waters, could be guilty of a Federal crime if the treated wastewater contained a.ny amount of oil. This provision runs completely contrary to the schemes of regulation set up under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and tl1e Water Pollution Control Acts of the various States. The lack of quantitative specificity makes such a criminal provision of extremely doubtful validity. In any event, it is highly unwise and undesirable to set up a criminal statute that could result in con- flict with state and federal regulatory provisions. The proposed legislation further provides that any vessel or shore installation which violates this section or any regulation issued thereunder, shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $10,000, although it is not clear how this type of in rem penalty can be made a'pplioahle to a shore installation. Some limitations are placed on the liability of the owner or operator under 5. 2760; how-ever, they could still be held accountable for such unauthorized acts as vandalism, sabotage, and negligent acts by others. Subsection 19(e) would provide that "The owner or operator of a vessel or shore installation from which oil is `discharged into or upon the navigable waters of the United States *or adjoining shorelines shall remove such discharged oil immediately from such waters and `shorelines in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section. If such owner or operator fails to so act, the Secretary may remove the oil or arrange for its removal from such waters and shorelines, and such owner or operator and, `as appropriate, the vessel `and `the shore installation shall be liable, not withstanding `any other provision of law, to the United States, in addition to any penalties p'rescribed in this section, for the full amount of the actual costs incurred by the Secre- tary under this subsection: Provided, That there shall be no such liability where such discharge was due to an `act of God." At best, the words "unlawfully and negligently discharged" `should appear in this section to avoid the irnposthtion of liability without fault The obligation would be to act "immediately," with apparent disregard of whether the man- power or equipment was readily available. Oil would have to be removed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Thus, the Secretary would be granted sweeping powers `to require methods of removal which could turn out to be extremely costly and unnecessary under `particular circumstances. The liability for the full amount of the actual costs incurred by the Secretary in removing the oil would be imposed without administrative hearing or review. It is also significant to note that criminal and civil penalties would be imposed regardless of whether or not `there were any adverse effects from the discharge. By contrast, subsection 19(k) referring to federal operation's uses `the phrase "where adverse effects may oc'cur." Our conclusion is thht it would be highly desirable to leave the regulation of discharges from shore installations subject to the present regulatory provi- sions set forth in `the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Therefore, it `is respectfully urged th'at, if any bill is reported, provision's p'roviding for a dif- ferent system of regulation or enforcement for shore installations be deleted. DUAL REGULATION It would be most unfortunate to have `a dual system of administering water pollution control for discharges from shore installations. Under the policy of the Water Qualit.y Act of 1965, as wisely adopted by `the Congress, there has been a tremendous fermeii't of interest in water quality objectives and means for their attainment `as the states formulated water quality standards for interstate wal ers within their respective boundaries. Thus, action to main- taimi high staT dards ap'plicat'le to waters receiving discharges of not only oil but of any kir d of matter is at an all-time high. The most desirable approach would be to allow this program to go forward through administration by the states of their own water quality standards, rather than `to impose a conflicting, fed- erally administered system. We would be remiss if we `did not mention one difficulty arising in connection with the Water Quality Act of 1905. Under that Act, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to make a determination as to whether t'he state standards are consistent with the objectives of `the Act. The crit'eria used by the Secre- tary in making these determinations have been expressed in various docu- PAGENO="0681" 673 me'nts and letters issued internally arid externally to various parties from time to time over the past two years, with none of them being printed in the Federal Register. As a result, considerable confusion ha.s arisen both among state agencies and among industrial companies as to what criteria may be prop- erly applied to these standards. It appears that some of the state standards al- ready deemed to be consistent with the Act are no longer considered as accept- able. The confusing, varying attitude of the Secretary is illustrated by the sen- tence in his letter of February 15, 1968 to the Governor of Alabama in which lie stated: "In the course of approving the various standards submitted by the States, it has become obvious to me `that some `of those approved last summer were not of the same quality which we are now requiring." Part of the difficulty appears to lie in the belief `of the Secretary that he has an absolute veto power over the state water quality standards exercised through a flat power of approval or disapproval, when the Act merely authorizes him to make `a determination that the standards are consistent with the objec- tives of the Act. And, an even greater cause of the confusing, vacillating treat- ment of state water quality standards is the fact that formal administrative procedures have not been adopted in carrying out the Secretary's function in this regard, despite the fact that Section 12(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes him `to issue regulations regarding any of his functions under the Act. We respectfully suggest that it would be desirable for the Secretary to follow the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. This w-ould involve his printing in the Federal Register the criteria by which be proposes to evaluate the state water quality standards and allowing an appropriate period of time for comment by all interested parties prior to the final pro- mulgation of these criteria. We `believe that `this `procedure' would be a construc- tive contribution toward an orderly administration of the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965, an'd by contributing clarity as to what may be expected by those subject to water pollution control requirements would result in quicker attainment of our mutual goals. In any event, the `perfection of procedures under the Water Quality Act of 1965 so as to `carry out the expressed intent `of Congress to preserve the primary responsibilities of the States would be highly preferable to setting up a con- flicting, centralized regulation of shore installation discharges completely con- trary to the intent stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We strongly urge that any suc'h provisions be `deleted from any legislation reported by this distinguished Committee. SHIPBTJILDER5 COUNCIL OF A~rEnIcA, it[ay 10, 1968. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, ~Subcomrnittee on Rivers and Harbors, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, T'Vashington, D.C. DEAR Mn. BLATNIK: The Shipbuilders Council of America, whose shipyard members build, convert and repair commercial vessels and other floating equip- ment, has `attempted to assess the ramifications of the various bills concerning control of water pollution, on which you `held hearings last month, a's they po- tentially apply to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, and respectfully submits the following observations w-hich may be of interest to you `and the members of your Committee. (1) Approximately 93% of `all 15.8. trade and commerce is presently Carried in vessels of other nations, and a substantial portion of our confined Great Lakes trade `moves in Canadian vessels. These `shocking statistics are merely a reflection of the low national priority w-hich has been assigned merchant shipping and associated shipbuilding `activities in this coun'try during the past decade. (2) Therefore, in the absence of appropriate international agreements, it would appear that legislation requiring water pollution control systems on U.S. flag oceangoing and Great Lakes commercial ships would not reach the major shipping media serving U.S. ports and operating in U.S. estuaries. (3) In `any event, pollution resulting from dumping or spilling of sewage or other materials from ships is insignificant. (4) The imposition of pollution control systems could have adverse economic repercussions on many shipping operators who are endeavoring to stem the tide PAGENO="0682" 674 of a complete takeover of essential trade routes by foreign shipping which, in turn, would be required to install the same systems, and (5) Similarly the cost of ship construction and ship conversion-which is already high in the United States in comparison with foreign activities of like character-would be still higher, and invoke a further economic disadvantage on U.S. ~ag operators. In presenting these observations, we in no way derogate the purpose of the various bills-we have only praise for the Committee's commendable efforts to reach rational as weU as realistic solutions to the increasingly vexing problems of air and water pollution. We are confident, however, that you and the members of your distinguished Committee will agree that any workable approach to the water pollution problem must be predicated on the cost of implementation as measured against the possibility of achieving effective solution. In the case of commercial shipping, for the reasons stated, the former will be high, and the latter, minimal at best. One other comment, bearing on the establishment and enforcement of any regulations which might ensue from the passage of legislation providing for regulations applicable to ships, may also be helpful. Historically, the United States Coast Guard has had purview over regulations affecting the strength, stability and safety of merchant ships constructed in U.S. shipyards. It has had a long experience in this field, and possesses the kind of special expertise which would be necessary in enforcing determinative regulations involving water pollu- tion systems. We, as an industry, therefore, feel very strongly that the juris- diction and responsThility of the U.S. Coast Guard should be so expanded to en- compass regulations and enforcement concerning pollution control measures applicable to U.S. ships, both oceangoing and those plying the Great Lakes and inland waterways. We respectfully request that this letter, on behalf of our members in all sec- tions of the country, be made a part of the record of your current hearings. Sincerely, EDwIN M. HOOD, President. RAILROAD Co~IMIssIoN OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEx., April 26, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, U.S. House of Representatives, Honse Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Railroad Commission of Texas is the State agency which has and exercises jurisdiction over pollution from oil production operations in Texas. Under the Water Quality Act of 1965, the Commission worked with the Texas State Water Quality Board in establishing standards on water quality for oil and we have the legal machinery for implementation and enforcement. Our atandards have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. We can see no need for dual jurisdiction over stationary sources of pollution of any kind, or for Federal pre- emption of our authority. We are prepared to cope with any problem of oil pol- lution from shore installations in Texas. We therefore urgently request that all reference to such installations in S. 2760 and H.R. 15906 be deleted before pas- sage of these bills. Jmi C. LANGDON, Chairman. BEN RAMSYE, Commissioner. BYRON TUNNELL, Commissioner. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., April 30, 1968. HOn. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Public Works Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: The American Public Health Association (APHA) throughout its ninety-five year history as a professional organization has always been concerned about the problems of water quality. In fact, we consider our- PAGENO="0683" 675 selves pioneers in this field. Now in its twelfth edition, our "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" is as much of an outstanding contribution to the public's health today as it was when first published in 1905. Within the past fifteen years, APHA has reinforced its support for State water pollution control programs. In 1955 we urged Federal legislation to provide addi- tional research on water pollution problems; in 1957 APHA endorsed the ap- proved amendments to Public Law 060; in 1959 we, advised the strengthening of water pollution control measures within the Public Health Service. To trace APHA's concern with water pollution is also to discover our dismay with the slow progress in solving this health problem. In 1960 we strongly opposed the transfer of water pollution control authority from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Department of the Interior. We expressed our belief that this substitution served no constructive purpose and would only result in the mere shifting of health experts into the ranks of the new administering agency. In passing, we should like to note that the monumental achievements promised at the time of this transfer of authority are yet to be attained. The present amendment in question, H.R. 15907, has raised some concern on the part of APHA. We have always maintained that to be effective, water Ijollu- tion control must be carried out at State and local levels. This would be accom- plished with as much oganizational latitude as possible. We believed `then, anti still do now, that planning, development and control ought to be aimed at promot- ing local initiative. The guidelines laid down by the original Water Pollution Control Act supported this concept. However, segments of the current amendment to `this Act seem to contradict the very idea of local self-sufficiency. In particular, we refer to the proposed tax on municipal bonds which would finance construction of sewage treatment `facilities. Tax exemption has traditionally served as an incentive for investment in local public works. It is difficult to perceive just how the concept of a State-Federal partnership could survive if a municipal bond tax were implemented. Such a proposal would run directly counter to the intent of the original Act and would penalize rather than stimulate local investment in vital public works projects. Another problem arising out of this amendment is the possibility that Federal reimbursement of local funds would no longer be authorized. Congress, in 1966, approved the pre-financing provision, thus rewarding the initiative of those States which began worthwhile projects prior to Federal approval. As with the plan for taxing municipal `bonds, the concept of a Federal-State partnership would be' jeopardized if the prefinancing provisions were deleted from the proposed amend- ment. The APHA cannot emphasize enough the pressing need for a more expedient and effective means to eliminate polluting effluents in our nation's water supply. Progress can be made in this direction only if the Federal Government is respon- sive to the States in their campaigns against water pollution. Consequently, we would oppose any proposals which retard progress in this area. Sincerely yours, BERWYN F. MATTISON, M.D., Ewecutive Director. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, April 26, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: Please accept my views concerning H.R. 16044 which would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize grants for assisting in improved operation of waste treatment plants. The bill with certain modifications would assist Maryland's water pollution control program. In the past I have supported the wisdom of Federal and State grants to assist in the initial construction of main sewerage facilities. But it has seemed to me that the cost of maintenance and operation could be assessed against those served through appropriate user charges. However, in many instances, the requirements of high water quality standards designed to enhance water uses many miles from the point of discharge cause a substantial increase in the cost PAGENO="0684" 676 of operating sew-age treatment works. Equity would seem to indicate that these additional costs should be borne by the general public who benefit from the additional treatment, as well as those who are discharging wastes to the treat- ment plant. Therefore, I urge your favorable consideration of the bill with the following modifications: 1. Strike the word "chemical" at the start of Line 1, Page 2. 2. Strike Lines 12, 13 and 14 on Page 2 and in lieu thereof insert, "waste treatment plants where in the opinion of the Secretary a higher than normal degree of treatment is required to meet water quality standards." Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, JAMES B. COtJLTER, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Health yerviecs. KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 1, 1968. Representative RId-rAnD BOLLING, ~cnate 071cc Building, TVash'ington, D.C.: Recommend you support certain features of HR. 15907 for long term Federal loans to finance municipal sewage treatment facilities. Major provisions of bill could benefit Missouri cities. Urge this legislation be enacted as an additional means of financing and not as substitute for existing program. Recent favorable State action providing $2.5 million State matching funds for 25-25-50 program should be continued and expanded as soon as Federal funds allow. While new legislation appears helpful, we are concerned about non-tax exempt features of proposal, possibility of undue Federal interference in establishing service charges, and extent which Missouri law will permit utilization of this type bond. ILUS W. DAVIS, Mayor. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, T'Vashingtoa, D.C., May 9, 1968. 11011. GEORGE H. FALLON, Cha-inii an, Corn m ittee oa Pu-b lie TVorl:s, Ho use of Representatives, TVa-shington, D.C. DEAR Ma. `CHAIRMAN: In connection with hearings by your Committee on amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am submitting the enclosed statement On behalf of the AFL-~CIO. I respectfully request that this statement be included in the record of hearings. Thank you. Sincerely, ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation. STATEMENT BY ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR., DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew- J. Biemiller. I am Director, Department of Legislation, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions. I am also chairman of the AFL-CIO Staff Commit-tee on Atomic Energy and Natural Resources. I appreciate this opportunity to present the position of organized labor on S. 2760, HR. 15906 and HR. 15007, amending the Water Pollution Control Act. S. 2760 and HR. 15906 amend the sections of the Act dealing with oil pollution, S. 2760 provides for federal contracts and grants with or to public or private entities to develop methods of controlling pollution of lakes and controlling acid or mine pollution, including an area demonstration program. - The AFL-CIO wishes to go on record in general support of 5. 2760 and HR. 15907 w-i-th amendments I shall propose as follows: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 27G0 1. In Section 19(a) the definition of public shore installation should be broadened to include those operated by regional or local government agencies, as u-all as those operated by the United States, or by a state. PAGENO="0685" 677 2. We strongly oppose the criminal penalties levied against seamen and officers of a vessel violating the provisions of the bill and discharging oil into waters, Section 19(c), and suspension or revocation of license of master or other licensed officer. Section 19(g). These provisions should be stricken from the bill. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 15907 HR.. 15907 contains an amendment to Section 8 of the Act with respect to federal assistance in financing construction of local water waste treatment plants heretofore carried out entirely by means of grants-in-aid. This amendment would authorize the Secretary for three years (fiscal years 1969-71 inclusive) to enter into contracts with a state, municipality, or inter- state or inter-municipal agency, within the amounts authorized for appropriation, to provide federal assistance and backing in paying out on principal and interest for construction bond issues (30-year maturity) floated to finance w-aste treat- nient facilities. This proposed program would apply only to areas containing 125,000 or more population, or defined by the Bureau of the Budget as standard metropolitan statistical areas. The federal assistance would consist of- (a) The federal share of principal and interest payments on the locally issued bonds. (b) An additional payment to cover the difference between the private money market interest rate and the current average yield of outstanding federal obligations of comparable maturities. (c) Aissumption of outstanding `amounts due by the federal government in event of default by the non-federal agency. (a) Fiscal year authorizations of $700 million for 1969; $1.0 billion for 1970, and $1.25 billion for 1971, together with authorization to appropriate moneys for costs of liquidating the contracts. Municipalities under 125,000 population are entitled to "at least" 50% of the first $100 million appro- priated under Section 8 for construction of local water waste treatment works. (e) Various eligibility criteria, sqt by the Secretary, dealing with financial soundness, reasonable interest rates, compatibility with regional water quality plans, adequate user charges, maximum efficiency of design and operation, compatibility with state plan as approved by Secretary, state plan to upgrade efficiency of all local treatment works that have in opera- tion a treatment works operator certification program not later than July 1, 1970. We realize that there are current problems in finding the necessary funds to honor the authorizing commitment of Congress in enacting the 1965 and 1080 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act in the area of c'on~truction grants for the localities. In view of the budgetary pinch, we endorse the approach set forth in the amendments to Section 8 as a temporary expedient. We suggest, however, that the Committee c-onsider seriously the following recommendations w-ith regard to the 1)onding contracts provisions of this legislation. 1. That the contracts entered into by the Secretary, to assist in paying off public non-federal bond issues for approved water waste treatment plants, Over and above other funds available, including federal construction grants under the Act, provide for an additional federal grant sufficient to pay one-third (33.33%) of the annual interest charge payable each year by the non-federal public agency on bonds floated on the private money market. This is along the lines of similar provisions in the Proxmire-Patman bills (S. 3140 and HR. 15991). 2. That the interest income from the bonds or other securities be subject to federal taxation and the bonds sold to parties other than any agency of the United States Government. 3. That the bonding provisions in Section 2 of HR. 15907 cover the smaller localities, as well as those of 125,000 population `or over, and standard metro- politan statistical areas. Once again, we urge that this Committee give serious attention to these pro- posals in the interest of more effectively moving forward on a national water pollution control program which at present is not moving forward. Thank you. PAGENO="0686" 678 THE CITY OF SHAWNEE, Shawnee, 0/cia., April 19, 1908. lion. TOM STEED, Congress of the United States, House of Represent/yes, Washington, D.C. DEAR To~i: I am concerned about House Bill No. 15907 by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Blatnik. This bill is to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, relating to the construction of waste treatment works, and to the conduct of water pollu- tion control research, and for other purposes. I am concerned as follows: Page 2 line 3-Only towns that have had project or have one going that will be finished by July 1, 1968 are eligible. Page 5 line 5-This would hamper tremendously sale of bonds with the interest on same being subject to tax. This would actually be unfair to the large cities since the smaller towns could qualify under the present Bill 660 for 30 per cent grants. I think this would cause arguments between the little towns and big towns. Page 5 line 23-Only cities of 125,000 people or more are eligible for these funds. If a limitation by size, then it would be necessary to increase funds in the 660 program for the small towns and cities. Page 8 line 3-Slowness in which cities could proceed in completing contracts. Actually, under most of this program there is nothing for the small towns. Page 9 line 17-It limits 50 percent of the first $100 million for towns under 125,000 population. With 50 states that would only give $1 million for Oklahoma if divided equally among the 50 states which is totally inadequate for require- ments for the past several years. The Health Department in our State has done a tremendous jol in assisting the small towns-750, 1500, 2000-and in so doing, our State is being recognized as outstanding for accomplishments in sewer pollution control and elimination. I know the needs in the big cities are great, but I am sure you recognize that we only have two cities in Oklahoma who could qualify under this program. So maybe I am being a little selfish, but since there are so many cities and towns under the 125,000, I felt you would be concerned as I am in making possible continued efforts in improving our sewer plants and sewer systems to meet federal requirements of 90 per cent removal of solids. If you w-ill refer this matter to some member of your staff, I would appreciate your consideration. Yours truly, Bill. W. B. MORAN. RAILROAD Co~rMIssIoN OF TEXAS, OIL AND GAS DIVISION, Austin, Tea., April 26, 1968. Hon. Jui C. WRIGHT, U.S. House of Representatives, TVashington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WRIGHT: We have just been advised that S. 2760, the oil spill cleanup legislation is being considered at public hearings before the House Public Works Committee, April 23 to 25. This bill would extend federal control of oil pollution to cover shore instal- lations. Until now, the federal government has regulated vessels only. Because of the transient nature of vessels w-e find no quarrel w-ith federal regulation of such vessels. Federal regulation of stationary sources of pollution is contrary to the declara- tion of policy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which states that it is the policy of Congress "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary respon- sibilities and rights of the states in preventing and controlling water pollution Among the facilities defined as "shore installations" in S. 2760 are drilling facilities, pipe lines, pumping stations, loading docks, wharfs or piers "which is located in or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States." PAGENO="0687" 679 The inclusion of shore installations, as defined in the proposed bill would open the door to federal regulation, on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, of all water pol- lution which is already being handled by the states in an efficient manner. Fur- ther it would render the orderly procedures under which the states set and enforce their own water quality standards meaningless. The Railroad Commission of Texas is designated by the Texas Legislature as the agency responsible for oil pollution abatement. It has adopted necessary rules and regulations, has adequate inspection and enforcement personnel and is con- stantly at work improving conditions. The Commission and the Texas Water Quality Board have devised water quality standards and submitted same timely to the Secretary of the Interior in compliance with the Federal Water Pollu. tion Control Act. These standards have been accepted by the Interior Department. Therefore, we see no need for further legislation to enable federal encroach- ment in this field reserved unto the states. We respectfully solicit your efforts in behalf of the State of Texas in this vital matter. Yours very truly, RAILROAD COMMISsION OF TEXAS, JIM C. LANGDON, Chairman. BYRON TtJNNELL, Commissioner. BEN RAMSEY, Commissioner. GREAT LAKES COMMISSION, Ann Arbor, Mich., April 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, U.S. Representative, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: In a recent letter to you it was our privilege to furnish, in summary form, the resolutions and recommendations of the Great Lakes Commission adopted at our Annual meeting in November 1967. (Copy attached.) Among these items there was included a recommendation on Disposal of Wastes from T7essels and reference to 5. 2525. Since you have introduced HR. 16207, a companion bill to S. 2525, with hearings announced before the House Public Works Committee for April 23-25, 1968, it was thought advisable to con- tact you again, review the matter, and let you know of the developments to date as we know them. Insofar as regulations dealing with the control of wastes from commercial vessels, documented vessels of the United States and foreign vessels temporarily using the navigable w-aters of the United States, the Great Lakes Commission took the position that these regulations should be the responsibility of the Fed- eral government and recommended that: (1) a specific date be set for placing the regulations in effect, (2) a specific set of approved quality standards be promulgated, (3) a specific plan be formulated which will enable shipping firms to accumulate a reserve before taxes to be used for the cost of installation of waste disposal equipment and (4) specific recognition that regulations, standards and their date of effectuation be compatible with similar action which may be taken in Canada. The Great Lakes Commission strongly recommends that the regulation and control of wastes from pleasure craft should be the responsibility of the states `which issue the permits and license the craft, and that the requirements for controlling the disposal of wastes from pleasure craft should be uniform throughout the Great Lakes: It was the recommendation of the conferees at the Conference on Lake Michigan Pollution, January 31-February 7, 1968, and agreed to `by conferees on March 11, 1968, that the four states bordering on Lake Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin, join together in formulating uniform rules and regulations for controlling wastes' from watercraft. It was further recom- mended that these rules and regulations will generally conform with the Harbor Polultion Code adopted by the `City of Chicago, `the regulation adopted by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, and the Model Boating Act which prohibits "over side" disposal and does not approve the use of the macerator elorinator. Since each of the four states operates under different statutes, con- PAGENO="0688" 680 ferees will recommend to their respective boards, legislatures, ctc., approval of the proposed uniform rules and regulations. Commensurate requirements (the Conference recommended) controlling the discharge of wastes from commercial vessels are to be the responsibility `of the Federal government. It is understood that representatives from the' four states have met, and have reached agreement on states' activities in connection with regulating dis- posal of wastes from wa'tercraft. Formal announcement of `the agreement on the rules and regulations for disposal of wastes from. wat'ercraft for the Lake Michigan states is expected shortly. It appears logical and desirable that the remaining states bordering the Great Lakes w-ill see fit to adopt like regula- tions for the operation and control of watercraft for their navigable waters. In view of the foregoing it is the recommendation of the Great Lakes Commission (1) That the Federal government establish requirements and regulations for controlling the discharge of wastes from commercial vessels; specifi- cally establishing effective dates; effluent walter quality standards; as- sistance in financing installation costs and conformity with regulations w-hich may `be established by Canadian `authorities. (2) That `the states w-'hich issue permits and licenses for pleasure craft be responsible for controlling the disposal of wastes from these craft; that the rules and regulations be uniform between and among `th.e states; awl that the agreements reached by the four `states `bordering on Lake Michigan be considered by `the remaining Great Lakes states in establishing uniform rules an'd regulations which govern the use of their navigable waters by federally non-documented, small boats or pleasure craft. I t appears that the Great Lakes Commission will not be able to present an oral statement at the hearings, April 23-25, 1968, on HR. 16207. It will be greatly appreciated if you permit `this `letter to .be incorporated in the record of hearings `as presenting the view-s of the Great Lakes Commission. Thank you very much f.o'r your many past courtesies and assistance. Sincerely yours, LEONARD J. GOODSELL, Eaecutive Director. GREAT LAKES COMMISSION At its Annual Meeting, the Great Lakes Commission adopted the following resolutions and recommendations which are of primary interest in the water resources area, and some of w-hich are of direct interest in connection with legis- lation now before the Congress. FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Anadromous Fish Act A resolution urging the continuance of the Anadromous Fish Act beyond 1970 and provision for a higher federal cost-sharing for projects which are regional in nature'. (Copy attached) Land and Water Conservation Fund A resolution supporting additional funding for this program and continued division of funds on `a 00% state, 40% federal basis, and opposing exemption of the Corps of Engineers project areas from entrance fee requirements, 5. 1401 and other bills. (Copy attached) Consolidation of Grant Programs A recommendation to support the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Administrators in their effort to )Tring about a consolidation of the fish and wildlife grant programs, using the programs of the Department of Interior as a pilot effort. SEAWAY, NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE Rail Freight Rates A resolution which requests the Midwest Governors' Conference `to urge the Interstate Commerce Commission to enter into a study of the relative levels and reasonableness of railroad freight rates on commodities intended for export, in general and `bulk cargo ocean services, through the North Atlantic range of ports and the Great Lakes ports, and the Gulf Coast and Great Lakes ports. PAGENO="0689" 681 Disposal of Wastes from Vessels A recommnndation that the regulations developed for the control of wastes from commercial vessels include the following considerations: (1) a specific date be set for placing the regulations in effect, (2) a specific set of standards be introduced `to serve as a guide for companies, (3) a specific plan to be formulated which will enable shipping firms to accumulate a reserve before taxes be used for the cost of installation of waSte disposal equipment and (4) specific recogni- tion that regulations, standards and their date of effectuation be compatible with similar action which may be taken in Canada. Now under consideration are S. 2525 and other `bills which deal with commercial interstate and international vessels and pleasure craft. In a previous action, the Great Lake Commission had concluded that the regulation and control `of wastes from pleasure craft should be the responsibility of the states which issue permits and license the craft, and that the requirements should be uniform throughout the Great Lakes. Derelict Vessels A recommendation that all concerned be alerted to the potential problems presented by fuel oi'l, cargo and other pollutants contained in the wrecks of apparently abandoned vessels in the Great Lakes, and the apparent lack of authority for the removal of vessels ~n'd polluting substances prior to their becoming a pollution problem. There have been two recent court decisions which define certain responsibilities of owners of wrecked or sunken vessels on inland waters and actions which may be taken to effect clean-up or removal of pollutants. It appears that federal legislation (R. & H. Act of 1898, 33 USC 409, and others) should be expanded to permit or require a federal agency to act not only in hazard or obstruction to navigation matters but `also in instances where derelict vessels and their cargoes p'ose threats or `hazards to water quality, beaches, intake's or other water useS. Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Canal A recommendation that the feasibility study of the Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Canal be funded fully to permit its completion at the earliest possible date. The Great Lakes Commission urges your consideration of and support for thes'e resolutions and rec~mmendationO. Sincerely yours, LEONARD J. GOODSELL, Eojecutive Director. COMMONwEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Harrisburg, April 9, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON. Chairman, House Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FALLON: The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board met recently and carefully considered H.R. 15907, the Water Quality Act of 1908. We are `seriously concerned about the provisions of this bill and adopted the attached `statement for your consideration. Sincerely yours, WESLEY 13. GILBERTSON, Chairman, Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board. PosITIoN STATEMENT BY GREAT LAKES-UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD The basic purpose of financial assistance authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for construction of waste treatment plants is to provide incentives for communities to move ahead fas'ter with installation of needed facilities. The proposal in HR. 15907 `to modify the existing grant authoriza- tion to one which would partially substitute contracts to provide annual Federal payments instead of outright ca'sh grants, raises a number of serious questions as to possible adverse effects on attainment of goals for sewage treatment con- struction. It is recognized that the current Federal fiscal dilemma w-hich gave rise to `this proposal is importantly related to the Vietnam military nee'ds. These could be reduced significantly in the month's `ahead. For this reason it might be wise to 04-376-GS------44 PAGENO="0690" 682 avoid hasty action in making major changes in the present authorization. Furthermore a number of states have embarked upon financial incentive programs in this field which have been planned to complement the present Federal program, and careful analyses should be made to avoid harmful or interfering changes. In addition to raising the need for evaluation of the advantages and disad- vantages of the "annual payment" proposal, the present bill HR. 15907, in- cludes a number of new conditions which would have to be met by communities to be eligible for Federal financial assistance. Some of these conditions are ob- jectionable and would certainly retard water pollution abatement progress. Comments on these follow: 1. Prohibition of tax exemption. We have been advised that this require- ment could seriously interfere with the marketing of local obligations and could result in higher interest rates. It should be noted that many states have a legal limit of 6% on the interest rate for pertinent types of bonds. This section of the bill should be carefully evaluated. 2. Limitation to treatment works serving 125,000 or more population or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. If the program were just being initiated, such a provision might have some application, but at this time there is a great need to upgrade and enlarge existing treatment facilities to achieve higher water quality objectives. This requirement, if enacted, would prevent use of Federal funds .on many of these plants to attain established goals. This section should be deleted. 3. Consistency with area comprehensive planning. While there is agree- ment with this general objective, a fiat requirement could well delay indefi- nitely the installation of critically-needed waste treatment facilities, where local officials have not yet agreed on a comprehensive area development plan. Therefore it is recommended that a phrase be added at the end of this sec- tion (line 14), as follows: ". . . where such plans have been developed." In summary, Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board recommends a care- ful assessment of the effect of changing the construction grants, in part, to contracts for annual payments, and urges certain changes and deletions to avoid serious intereference with the incentive program. The Great Lakes-Upper Mis- sissippi River Board offers its assistance and consultation to arrive at improved legislation. Adopted: April 5, 1968, Chicago, Illinois. CALGON Conp., Pittsburgh, Pa., April 22, 19G8. Hon. JOHN BLATNIK, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Office Building, Washington., D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: Calgon Corporation as a manufacturer of spe- cialty chemicals for water and waste treatment is interested in HR. 16044. WTe believe ceirtain portions of the bill as now written are subject to misinterpireta- tion and should be clarified so as to reduce as far as is possible divergent inter- pretations. Therefore, we are submitting the attached statement on the bill with a suggestion as to how subsection (h) should be reworded. We appreciate the oppoi~unity to express our position and would be happy to appear in person for further clarification if necessary. Sincerely, A. M. GABER, Public Relations Manager. STATEMENT OF POSITION OF CALGON CORP. "We are in concurrence with the intent of the amendment introduced by Mr. Dingell to improve operating efficiency of municipal waste treatment plants by chemical treatment. However, we strongly recommend that certain portions be rewritten to clarify present language. Specifically we recommend that subsection (h) be reworded t.o read thusly: "`(h) the Secretary is authorized to make grants annually to any State, mumcipahty, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the purpose of assist- ing in the operation of existing Waste treatment plants using proven methods to achieve a significant immediate improvement of effluent quality by remov- ing materials such as phosphate, suspended solids and organic matter.' PAGENO="0691" 683 `It is our firm opinion, backed by experience with problems faced by many municipal waste treatment plants, that these chemical treatment methods can be of value in producing a better quality effluent. Therefore, no single contami- nant should be the sole factor for determining which plants will qualify for grants. "We also believe that subsection I should be clarified in regard to the 25 per cent ceiling placed on such grants. Is the grant to be 25 per cent of the total operating costs including the cost of the `proven chemical means of effluent treatment'? Or is it to be 25 per cent of the plant operating costs for the afore- mentioned chemical treatment only? "We believe it should be qualified so as to leave little or no doubt as to which operating cost shall serve as the base figure in computing the 25 per cent grant." AMERICAN CHEMSCIENCE, INC., April 11, 1968. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: About a year and a half ago, while visiting Washington, I had the pleasure of meeting with your Legislative Assistant, Mr. Maurice B. Tobin. We discussed, in depth for several hours, various factors relating to pollution and the deterioration of our environment. Since 1938, I have been involved in practically every phase of work relating to the water cycle. For more than 15 years we have been concerned with the pollution impact of both produced crude oil and refined petroleum products as they find their way into our lakes and rivers and tidal estuaries. As a result of this effort, our work has developed into different technical directions but with the same overall objectives: to maintain our waterways as close to their natural state as possible. For the past 15 years, we have made desiccated custom cultures that have been used in a variety of treatments for industrial waste problems. This development is now timely as a result of the world wide transportation of oil and oil spills. The problem was recently highlighted by the loss of the Torrey Canyon off the coast of Great Britain last year. Oil spill catastrophes as a recurring problem was again brought to public attention by the sinking of another tanker off the coast of Puerto Rico several months ago. Our associated company, Conservation Processes, Inc. has developed a continuous process to recover non-saleable emul- sified crude oil ("slop-oil") and convert it into pipeline grade oil. "Slop Oil" is also a source of pollution. The world wide traffic of petroleum in tankers takes on a new significance because of the increase in the size of the tankers now being built. Many of these will be two and three times larger than the size of some of the ships now in use. During World War II, numerous American tankers were torpedoed not far from shore all along the Eastern Atlantic seaboard as well as the Gulf Coast. There are no exact figures for the number which are now lying close enough to our shores for a period of almost 25 years. The time is not too far distant when these ships will start breaking up and creating severe economic losses in recreation and fisheries caused by the oil that will be released. While there may have been some immediate use and effectiveness of de- tergents for the clearing of beaches of oil, there is no sound scientific basis for the use of detergents and/or wetting agents to disperse oil spills in oceanic waters. In fact, Dr. J. E. Smith, Director of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Plymouth, England, has reported that all marine life around the Cornish Coast has been largely destroyed by detergents used to treat the spills from the Torrey Canyon. It is apparent, that in some instances, oil spills may be rendered more toxic to marine life because the wetting agents can change membrane potential in both microscopic and macroscopic oceanic life thus permitting the crude oil entrance into the life system involved. We believe, that a more effective method of approach to this problem would be treatment of the oil spills by specially prepared HYDEC cultures (Hydro- carbon Decomposition). It requires research and special studies on how these may be applied. We have been making hydrocarbon utilizing cultures for over 15 years, the following is a synopsis of our experience and background in the treatment of Hydrocarbon waste: PAGENO="0692" 684 HISTORY OF MICROBIAL TREATMENT OF HYDROCARBON WASTES Since 1952, we have manufactured and applied on a world wide basis more than 5,000,000 lbs. of various dessicated microbial cultures for the treatment of sanitary and industrial liquid/solid wastes. Our hydrocarbon decomposition (HYDEC) cultures were first used in sani- tary sewage plants that received large quantities of oil that either completely killed or impeded normal biological activity. Applications of our hydrocarbon (HYDEC) decomposition cultures are made in various petrochemical and re- finery effluents to eliminate both oil and various specific organic compounds, as well as increasing the oxygen content and reduction of BOD. About five years ago we developed a method of treating oil contaminated bilges on mine sweepers of the U.S. Navy, Pacific Fleet, based in San Diego, California. As a result of the treatment, ships were able to pump an oil free bilge over the side without leaving an oil film on the surface. About the same time we also conducted some other work with a major oil company on the West Coast using our HYDEC cultures to clean tankers while at sea that carried black oil. This work was never fully completed and at the time it was stopped, results were marginal and required additional develop- ment. An eighteen year period of experience in development, manufacture and use of dessicated cultures on a world wide basis has shown the relative safety of these products. Our company and others that we are familiar with whose em- ployees have been in daily contact with these products have had no problems in health resulting from daily contact with mixed groups of microbial families. The organisms in these cultures are saprophytes and under most circumstances are generally not invaders of the human body or considered causitive agents of human disease. In world wide use by mostly unskilled people, no evidence of human disease has ever been attributed to the use of the products of `this type of manufacture. Each gram of our HYDEC culture contains more than two billion ecologically balanced hydrocarbon utilizing organisms together with various component nutrients and some wetting agents that we have used over a 15 year period so that the organisms can more effectively break down the hydrocarbons at the oil/water interface. Many of `the organisms in our HYDEC cultures are `adjusted for oceanic en- vironments. Also, many `area~s in oceanic environments contain indigenous `micro- floral which can utilize co'mplex hydrocarbons. However, where large oil spills occu:r, all of the lif'e systems involved in the chain of events that utilize crudb oil, are overcome because of the sudden and overwhelming amount of a substance that c'an only be used in minute amounts. One of the other factors connected with the prohlem of pollution is the tre- mendous expansion of off-shore drilling operations. For the most part, the major oil companies operating on a worldwide `basis have taken many precautions lo prevent contamination of the `areas in which they operate. However, on occasion accidents beyond their `control `do occur resulting With the release of `sulb'stantial quantities of crude oil. Off shore drilling operations were formerly concentrated ia the Gulf area and have now `moved to the West Coast of the United States. Further expansion of off~shote operations will soon take place in some of the Great Lakes and `the Eastern Coast of the United `States. Off-shore drilling on the East Coast has already started In the `neighboring waters to the north of us off the coast of Newfoundland. Petroleum geologist who have `been `s'tudimig the formations off that area believe that it continues dow-n to the Bahama Is- lands. We may therefore anticipate petroleum produdtion encircling `practically all `the coasts of the United States within the foreseeable future, say w-ithin `the next five years. Based on the preceeding information, you can see the vital necessity for im- plementing a research and development program designed either to alleviate or eliminate the economic consequences of massive `accidental oil `pollution on the `Coast of the United States as Well as it's Great Lakes, inland w-ater ways, and inland lakes. The techniques require study and research to be made efficient and routine `so that when such catastrophes occur. the information and methods of approach for alleviating the problem will `be readily available. We will appreciate any assistance your office may render to us. Congressman Blatnik, in obtaining federal funds so that we may continue to further the w-ork that we have started and developed over so long a period of time. Sincerely yours, A. J. KRELL, President. PAGENO="0693" 685 WILSON WATER PURIFICATION CORP., April 17, 1968. Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK, lb use Pi~blie Works Committee, 110 use of Representatives, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE SIR: We talked with Mr. Tobin with regard to filing a brief de- scriptive of the Wilson Ant;i~Septic Sewage Disposal System for watercraft. It was our idea to make sure that your committee understood there is competition in the field who have solved the problem of safe sewage disposal On the rivers aad Great Lakes. We therefore, respectively subniit that our producit is known as the Wilson Anti-Septic Sewage Disposal System. It cannot be classified as a macorator- chlorinator type, its design is a sort of hybrid or a cross between the holding tank and macerator-chiorinator. In this case the holding tank is a sterilizing tank, i.e. an "on board" disposal system. This apparatus, we believe is a complete answer to all of the troubles with macerator-chlorinntors that were mentioned in the report handed down in Document #48, and to substantiate this w-e are submitting certain technical data and test reports, etc and will include drawings and descriptive matter. We worked on this project for about four years, and since our conception of what a sewage treatment plant for watercraft should be, involved complete sterilization we soon found that it could not be done by macoration and chlorina- tion only. Our final designs include Macoration, Filtration and Chlorination with rapid re-circulation. Chlorine is the basic factor in the sterilization of sewage and it is a well known fact that chlorine cannot penetrate solids, therefore, maceration and re- maceration is used to break down the solids. The sewage then passes through a filter which stops any floating or unmacerated organic matter as well as inorganic particles, such as cigarette butts, fruit pits, fibrous matter, etc., with the result that the water comes through practically clear, and when in this condition chlorination can really do effective work. This is no doubt the reason why w-ith our installation at Hartford, Illinois, we get practically a sterilized effluent. The two reports of Scie1ltiflc Associates, Inc. of St. Louis, copies of which are enclosed, Se~itember 22, 1967 and March 20, 1968, are very consistent and show that coliform, bacteria and suspended solids are almost nil, or far below any standard specifications as published to date by the U.S. Engineers, etc that remaining biological matter is negligible. The only item left with any degree of uncertainty is the question of BOD and leading authorities (Oiin-Matthieson) have published claims "that with 0.2 ppm chlorine after 10 minutes contact will reduce BOD of effluents by about 1/3". If the dosage at 4. to 6. ppm are used (our recommendations) the BOD would be reduced to an estimated 85%. However, BOD does not seem to be too much of a factor since any BOD remaining would be absorbed in the receiving waters. The remaining undissolved solids and inorganic matter is all in sterile con- dition and may be removed about every two months by bilge pump. Both ends of the holding tanks have 2" drains and there are large openings on top. The filter is underneath a 20" manhole. Wilson holding tanks are made in six standard sizes for tug boats and up to the largest lake ships. Capacities are based on approximately 75 to 90 G.P.D. per crew man. This includes all waste water from water closets, urinals, showers, galley sinks, laundry, etc. When used on short run day time excursion boats we figure 4 gallons consump- tion per person per trip. Peak load retention time, when all toilets are flushed w-ithin a few minutes, is never less than 30 minutes. When no toilets are being flushed and the inacerator is running on the delayed timer the holding periods may run as long as 4 hours. We are naturally interested in having Congress establish a standards com- mittee which so far as watercraft is concerned will have to do with particle sizes and minimum (ppm) chlorine dosage. Respectfully yours, F. E. WILsoN, (Authorized Signature). PAGENO="0694" 686 PAGENO="0695" SOLECOID V6LVE VOTER ~ ~ ~t~1 U ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ 1r ~t ~ sTERiL(zi~fANN.-:~ (04 I I I j 1*'. t Air Vent DECK ~ $ - - - - -:::... " ) Chlorine feed line ~ -.~ -_- - ~ The Air Vent must be a Combination I Vent and Vacuum Breokor #tlL-360 4" CHECK VALVE- Crane No. 373,4 is recommended. WILSON WATER PURIFICATION CORP. Area Code 716 Phon.: 097.0146 2371 BROADWAY BUFFALO, NEW YORK. U.S.A. 14212 687 L.e~cuv ~ eurrv~s,~re cove To obtain information as to how thin unit might be applied to any specific job, shipbuilders and operators may write for a questionnaire which when received by as properly filled in, will enable us to quote approximane costs. ELECTRODE Electric Wires )M OF BOAT Illustrating how the maccrater and sterilizing tanks may be located en different levels. The hypo- chlorinator may be placed in another place than on the sterilizing tank. On small jobs our posi- tive displacement, electric hypochlorinator. Type PD, may be used. In such case the check valve and vent and vacuum breaker, above mentioned, must be used. PAGENO="0696" 68S INVESTMENT BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMExICA, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1968. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: The Investment Bankers Association of America would appreciate your including our enclosed statement regarding your Water Pollution proposal as part of the hearings on HR. 15906. The enclosed statement represents testimony delivered by three of our representatives recently before the Senate Subconnnittee on Air and Water Pollution. If we can be of any further assistance to you or the members of the Committee please do not hesitate to write or call. Sincerely, ALVIN V. `SHOEMAKER. STATEMENT BY THE INVESTMENT BANKERS ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF ROBERT KRUMM, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, EQUITABLE SECURITIES, MORTON & CO., NEW YORK CITY; WILLIAM SIMON, PARTNER, SALOMON BROS. & HUTZLER, NEW YORK CITY; JAMES LOPP, EASTMAN DILLON, UNION SECURITIES & CO., NEW YORK CITY My name is Robert Krumm, Executive Vice President of Equitable Securities, Morton and Company, Chairman of the Municipal Securities Committee of the Investment Bankers Association. I ask that the following statements on behalf of our industry `be made a part of the record of the hearings on HR. 15906. I would like to submit a statement on behalf of the 675 member firms of the Investment Bankers Association who are located in every State in the Union with over 2,000 branch offices. Collectively, they underwrite and distribute, and act as brokers for all types of Federal Government, corporate, and State, county, and municipal government securities. Our statement will be concerned only with that `portion of HR. 15906 which deals with the proposed new plans of financing the construction of waste treatment facilities. Before going into the specifics of this proposal, we would like to lend our sup- port to the efforts of the distinguished Congressman from Minnesota and others wrho have successfully pressed for solutions to the growing problems of water pol- lution in our streams and rivers. We believe that the new debt service contracts in lieu of direct grants, suggested in HR. 15900, represent an imaginative and farsighted effort to provide maximum Federal assistance to communities of 125,- 000 or more in population that are willing to take on the task of cleaning up our Nation's rivers. On the other hand, we strongly oppose the imposition of a Federal Government guarantee on the securities of States and local governments as a consideration of the waiver of their sovereign right of tax exen~ption. As a matter of funda- mental principle, we believe it would be a serious mistake on the part of local government to waive voluntarily the tax exemption of interest on, their bonds, regardless of purpose. The proposed new Federal contracts to pay a portion `of a community's debt service w-ill provide maximum Federal assistance with minimum effect upon the Federal Government's already overstrained budget. Under `this new proposed pro- gram, i,t is our understanding that the Federal Government will enter into con- tracts with communities with populations in excess of 125,000 to pay a portion of the debt service on their bonds issued to correct water pollution problems. We agree that it is in `the best interest of all concerned to leave the marketing of these securities to each participating community and metropolitan area. By allowing each bond issue to represent `the efforts in a particular area or proj~ct, it w-lll give the security distinct character. This will maximize, not only the mar- keting efforts of major underwriters in the national markets, but it allows par- ticipation by the regional firma's who are expert in the distribution `of securities in their particular area. This should make it easier to encourage local investment. Often, community and area pride in a particular project provides additional in- centive for local investors to accept :a lesser rate `of interest. It is our opinion, `how-ever, that `the present proposal is unnecessarily compli- cated and it should be simplified. We agree that these communities should issue PAGENO="0697" 689 their regular securities for the full cost of each project with the Federal Govern- ment agreeing to pay a portion of the debt service. This takes advantage of the already proven means of distribution through the regular municipal bond market. Here is a market that already works well, having distributed over ~14 billion of new bond issues in 1967. Assuming that the volume of mun:ici'pal industrial aid financing i.s substantially reduced as a result of pending Federal legislation or regulations, no added pressure should be placed on the municipal market by this program. The waiver by a participating municipality of its tax exemption is a very serious consideration regardless of the worthiness of the purpose. Its significance strikes the very constitutional foundations and relationships between local gov- ernment and Federal Government. We are sure Congress is well aware that the significance of State of local government tax exemption extends beyond economic considerations, indeed it involves their very political sovereignty. If the Federal Government is willing to provide assistance to local government, only at the ex- pense of their surrendering tax exemption, we doubt that this proposal can be justified. This proposal is particularly important when viewed as a precedent for recent bills introduced by Senator Proxmire and Congressman Patman to create a Gov- ernment corporation to guarantee municipal bonds issued fo.r all purposes. Never- theless, since the program outlined in H.R. 15906 is voluntary, the ultimate p0- litical decision rests with the local government units, not the investment bankers. Because of the worthwhile pui~pose of this program, we sincerely hope that this one aspect-that of waiving the tax exemption-will not distract all of the in- terested parties in water pollution from seeing the benefits of this over-all pro- posal, particularly, when there may very well be advantages in operating this program on the basis of Federal contracts providing for a portion of the debt service of ordinary municipal bonds. The first and most obvious advantage, previously mentioned, is using the proven capabilities of the existing municipal market. Well-formed patterns for the distribution of State, county and municipal securities have already been formed for every region throughout the Nation. Tax-exempt securities are mainly purchased by commercial banks, trust departments, casualty insurance com- panies, and individuals. On the other hand, taxable securities, such as the proposed municipal bonds guaranteed by the Federal Government, w-ould be of limited appeal to the normal purchaser of municipal bonds. Thus, a whole new' market must `be created for the proposed securities from among the existing purchasers of taxable debt. Most of these purchasers lack initial expertise in the area of municipal finance, having had very little occasion to follow this market. Accordingly, the proposed Government-guaranteed taxable municipal securities w-ould no doubt initially sell at higher interest rates, reflecting lack of investor knowledge and acceptabil- ity of the new' instruments. In addition, `these proposed new securities would have to compete with prime corporate issues. Prime corporate issues now are selling in the vicinity of six and three-quarters percent. Present market conditions raise another potential problem. Most States and local units of Government have statutory or constitutional interest ceilings on that debt. For example, the State of Washington has a constituional six percent limit for borrowing by cities. In this case, it w-ould require an amendment to the State constitution which would effectively block their participation for some time. These maximum net interest costs are geared for a tax-exempt rate of interest and the issuer w-ould therefore, under present market conditions, l)e unable to issue securities at the higher taxable rate. This problem can be eliminated by the issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds. In addition, the creation of yet another Government-guaranteed taxable secu- rity will add further pressure on the already highly competitive market for mdi- vidual savings. To the extent that such issues w-ould divert flow's of savings from savings and loan shares and mutual and commercial bank savings deposits, the ability of these financial intermediaries to make mortgage loans on both new and existing homes would be adversely affected. Thus, the unsettling process of disin- termediation (transfer of liquid savings from institutions to the investment market) and `the consequent very harmful implications for the home-building PAGENO="0698" 690 industry would be further increased by the creation of such taxable municipal securities. It does not appear that the continued use of tax-exempt municipal securities, as opposed to taxable municipal securities, would involve significant losses of rev- enue to the Treasury Department. As can be seen from the following table and the material that follows which was prepared by Mr. William Simon, Salomon Brothers and Hutzler, and Mr. Jim Lopp, Eastman Dillon, Union Securities and Company, among the likely large investors of these newly created securities are the pension funds and institutions w-hich currently comprise the market for corporate debt. NET ISSUES OF CORPORATE AND FOREIGN BONDS [In billions of dollars] Year totals 1964 1965 1966 1967 Net issues 7.1 8.6 11.8 17.0 Net purchases 7.1 8.6 11.8 17.0 Households -.8 -.3 1.2 1.8 State and local governments 3.2 3.2 4.4 6.7 Commercial banks .1 -.1 .1 .8 Mutual savings banks -.2 -.1 .3 2.0 Insurance 4.3 5.4 4.2 5.5 Life insurance companies 2.3 2.8 2.2 3.7 Private pension funds 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.0 Other insurance companies .3 1.1 .1 .8 Finance N.E.C .2 .5 .4 -.6 Restoftheworld .2 (1) 1.2 .8 I Less than 500,000. Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Flow of Funds, 4th quarter 1967, Jan. 31, 1968, p. 16. Of the $17 billion net issue of taxable corporate debt in 1967, well over one- half of these bonds were purchased by investors who are subject to little or no Federal income tax. Precisely the same pattern is evident during the previous three years. There are other major observations to be made with regard to the use of a Federal guarantee. First, if the Federal government did not guarantee these securities, it would lessen the degree of administrative responsibility placed upon the personnel of the Department ~f the Interior, since they would no longer need to make a determination that the issuing body was ~apable of paying off the debt. This risk would be assumed by the underwriting community. Secondly, with a Federal government guarantee upon these securities, the market would have no need to concern itself with the underlying financial con- dition of the issuer. The decisions as to whether the community had overextended itself, had proper supervising personnel, needed to increase its revenues, adjust its tax base, etc., would have to be shared by the Federal government. Under the present system, these economic decisions are made by independent financial analysts of competing underwriters and are not centered in any one particular person or agency. We sttongly believe that the best interests of both the issuers as well as ultimate investors are better served by such a diversifica- tion of decision making. This will be lost under `a system whereby the Federal government guarantees each community's bonds, thus making the variation `in interest riates very small, recognizing, as is the case with public housing bonds, there would be some variation between local government credits even with a Federal government guarantee. For the above reasons, we believe that `a system of regular bonn fide tax- exempt municipal securities, with a debt service contract with the Federal government, w-ill provide a superior credit instrument in the market. It can reasonably be expected to receive a lower net interest cost than would be `the case `in the absence of such underlying Federal support. In conclusion, therefore, we would like to reaffirm `our support of the lasic proposal of Federal contracts to pay a poftion of the `debt `service of State, `county and municipal securities sold for sewage treatment facilities as a reasonable PAGENO="0699" 691 means of solving the immense problems of water pollution. It would `be a serious mistake for communities to set a `precedent by waiving their sovereign right of tax exemption for any purpose. Nevertheless, in `the final analysis, the question `as to the advisability of com- munities waiving their tax exemption is a political assessment which must be answered by State, county `and municipal governments. As we have indicated, it is preferable to market these securities through the regular mechanics of mu- nicipal markets; however, if State `and local governments should conclude that it i's in their best interests to accept the proposals of this legislation and issue Government-guaranteed taxable secui~ities, the members of our industry will certainly do their best to efficiently `and economically underwrite such securities. COMPARATIVE COST OF TAx-ExEMPT VERSUS TAXABLE METHODS OF FINANCING This material was prepared by William E. Simon, a general partner, Sa'lomon Brothers & Hutzler, in charge of their government and municipal bond depart- ments. His firm's transactions totaled `over $110 billion last y~ar. This statement will discuss `briefly the comparative costs of tax-exempt vs. the taxable method `of financing. Who is the `consumer of the taxable issue and what is his effective tax rate? Mr. Krumm has `already covered the advantages of the proven municipal tax-exempt method. Mr. Lopp will further enforce these arguments. My portion of the statement will concern itself only with comparative costs. Included as part of this statement are four charts labeled A, B, C, and D. COMPARATIVE COSTS 1 Taxable Tax exempt Rate(percent) 6.5 4.875 Annual interest cost2 to issuers $65,000,000 $48,750,000 Less receipts from taxes on interest income (assuming 13.4 percent tax rates) 3 $8, 710, 000 Net cost 4 to issuers and Treasury combined $56, 290, 000 $48, 750, 000 1 Assuming $1,000,000,000 in Government bonds. 2 Gross interest costs for taxable securities under the above rate assumptions would be $16,250,000 per $1,000,000,000 amount per year more than for tax exempts. 3 Hswever, tax on the interest income from the taxable securities would return $8,710,000 per $1,000,000,000 amount per year. There is obviously no comparable return on tax exempts. 4 Thus there would be a net saving of $7,540,000 per $1,000,000,000 amount per year with tax exempts. NET FUNDS INVESTED IN CORPORATE AND FOREIGN BONDS BY INVESTOR GROUP ARRANGED BY TAX BRACKET Net volume of purchases of Corporate & Foreign Bonds (Dollar amounts in bil.ions( Total, 1966, Percent 1967, and 1968 contribution Zero tax bracket: State and local governments Private pension funds $18. 1 4.4 Total in zero tax bracket 1 to 20 percent tax bracket: Mutual savings banks Life insurance companies Total ito 20 percent tax bracket 21 to 50 percent tax bracket; Other insurance companies Commercialbanks Other finance Households Rest of world Total 21 to 50 percent tax bracket Grand total 22.5 56 2. 5 9. 1 11.6 29 1.3 . 1 2. 1 2. 0 6.4 16 40.5 100 Note: Average tax bracket: 13.4 percent. PAGENO="0700" 692 Dollar amounts in billionsj Net purchases of corporate and foreign bonds Percent Effective Effective Investor group - contribu- Federal taxable 1966 1967 1968 3-year tions tax contri- estimate total rate butions Stxte and local government $4. 4 $6. 7 $7. 0 $18. 1 44. 7 0 0 Private pension funds 1. 9 1. 0 1. 5 4. 4 10.9 0 0 Subtotal No. 1 22.5 55.6 0 Metual savings banks - 3 2. 0 .2 2. 5 6. 2 18 1. 1 Life insurance companies 2. 2 3. 7 3. 2 9. 1 22. 5 20 4. 5 Subtotsl No.2 11.6 28.7 5.6 Other insurance companies .1 .8 .4 1.3 3.2 48 1.5 Commercial banks .1 .8 .0 .9 2.2 48 1. 1 Other finance - 4 -. 6 - 3 - 1 - 2 48 - Households 1.2 1.8 -.9 2. 1 5.2 50 2.6 Rest of world 1. 2 . 8 . 0 2. 0 4. 9 50 2. 5 Subtotal No.3 6.4 15.7 7.8 Grandtotal 11.8 17.0 11.7 40.5 100.0 .13.4 Source: 1966 and 1967 net purchases are from Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System; Flow-of-Funds, Jan. 31 1968, p. 16. 1968 estimate is SB. & H. projection. STATE AND LOCAL SECURITIES JBillisns of dsllarsj 1966 1967 1968 estimate Gross new long issues 10.7 13.8 12.9 Federal public housing .4 5 4 Total gross 11.1 14.3 13.3 Adjustment 0 -.1 0 Adjusted gross' 11.1 14.2 13.3 Less refunding .2 .2 .1 Total, new money, new issue 10.9 14.0 13.2 Plus other long borrowing (estimate) .1 .7 .8 Less maturities 5.5 5.9 6.2 Net increase in long-term debt 5.5 8.8 7.8 Plus increase in miscellaneous short debt .4 .6 .5 Plus increase in P.H.A. short debt 0 .2 0 Change in total outstanding 5.9 9.6 8.3 Held in- Sinking funds (excluding investment funds) .3 .2 . 2 U.S. Government investment accounts 0 0 0 Net change in publicly owned debt 5.6 9.4 8.1 Owned by: Financial intermediaries SavingsBanks -.1 0 -.1 Life insurance companies -.3 -.2 -.3 Fire and casualty companies .8 1.2 .7 State and local retirement funds -.3 -.3 -.3 Total, financial intermediaries .1 .7 0 Commercial banks 2.4 8.5 5.0 Business corporations .8 .5 .6 Individuals and miscellaneous 2.3 -.3 2.5 Total, net change in ownership 5.6 9.4 8.1 Adjusted for payment date. Chart A is the comparative cost on tine taxable versus the tax-exempt method. Chart B is a percentage breakdown of net funds invested in corporate taxable securities. Chart C is the `GG-'GT net purchases from the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System "flow-of-funds" dated January 1908. The figures for 1908 are the Salosnon Brothers and Hutzler estimate of taxable financing. PAGENO="0701" 693 Chart D is a percentage breakdown of net funds invested in tax-exempt securities. Chart A: In taking a taxable security with a Federal guarantee, we fortu- nately have precedent on rate comparison with the Federal National Mortgage participation certificate which is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Assuming a rate of six and a half percent, this is a fair rate for your highest grade taxable issue. On the tax-exempt side of the coin, we have the Public Housing Authority guaranteed by the Government. This would, in our opinion, command a four and seven-eighths interest cost. Assuming the issuance of a billion dollars, the annual interest cost to the issuer is $65 million on the taxable side less receipts from taxes on interest income, assuming 13.4 percent tax rate, versus $48,750,000 on the tax-exempt side. At this point please look at the method by which we calculated the 13.4 per- cent effective tax rate on Chart B. You will notice that in lumping `66, `67 and `68, $40.5 billion taxable securities were issued. Of the $40.5 billion issued, $22.5 billion were purchased by State and local governments and private pension funds which are in the zero tax bracket. This amount means that 56 percent of your total purchasers are in the zero tax bracket. Mutual savings banks and life insurance companies, the second major group of purchasers, are in the 1 to 20 percent tax bracket and consumed 29 percent of the total taxable issues, or $11.6 billion. If you notice on Chart C, the effective tax rate that we used for mutual savings banks was 18 percent. This is the maximum figure, and I think you will find that the majority of savings banks today would be closer to zero, rather than 18 per- cent, so we are obviously being very conservative. The remainder of purchases of corporate securities, 16 percent of the total, are in the 21 to 50 percent bracket, comprising households, the Federal Reserve, and the rest of the w-orld category. We put them in the 50 percent bracket which I think is quite conservative and on the high side. Going back to Chart A, the Treasury would obviously, by going the tax-exempt route, lose $8,710,000 of additional revenue. However, the net savings on the one and five-eighths interest cost differential, would be $7.54 million per $1 billion amount per year on the tax-exempt method of financing. The $7.54 million does not reflect the additional cost of interest subsidy. ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY My name is W. James Lopp II representing Eastman Dillon, Union Securities and Company of New York. 0mm behalf of Eastman Dillon and myself, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to submit a statement on FIR. 15906. Last fall our firm was requested by the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration to prepare a study on the economic impact on affected units of Government of the cost of installation of waste treatment facilities. This study w-as called for by the Congress in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The study was submitted to the Oongress by Secretary of the Interior Udall on March 12, 1968. I was the director of this report. We were also requested in conjunction with the economic impact study to prepare a report suggesting an alternative method of financing the Federal grant program. Appropriations as a source of grants to local governments for the con- struction of waste treatment facilities had been falling behind authorized levels as a result of severe budgetary demands for other issues. I was also the director of this study, although Mr. John Mitchell, a leading municipal bond attorney, was greatly responsible for the actual drafting of the report. The study is avail- able for the record if the Committee so desires. First let me say that the concepts embraced in HR. 15906 are necessary if our pollution abatement program is not t~ become mired down with delays at increas- ing costs. Many State and local governments are moving forward with their grant programs; others are in the process. As of last fall, twenty states had adopted a participating grant program. As a result of working with many State governments, I am aware of an extreme despondency over the inadequate funding of the Federal grant program. The public and State legislatures have responded positively to the sense of urgency of protecting our Nation's water resources. If disappointed over their PAGENO="0702" 694 expectations for Federal aid, the program may lose its momentum and be delayed or set back for some time to come. HR. 15906 seeks to alleviate these contingencies but while doing so creates just as serious a problem by attacking the long-standing precedent of tax immu- nity which State and local bonds have traditionally enjoyed. Many reasons have been set forth as justification for the provision of taxable bonds. One position has been that tax exemption costs more to the Federal Gov- ernment than communities gain in lower interest costs. This posture was ques- tioned seriously by Mr. Simon. Another argument espoused has been that the impact of this program would place great strain on the tax-exempt bond market. However, I believe this point needs further elucidation. In examining the ability of the affected units of governments generally to finance capital outlays, and more particularly to attain the water quality standards established by the Federal program, it is necessary to consider the projected supply of borrow-ings and the availability of investable funds from institutional sources to meet these demands. The estimates prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of required net additions to the volume of municipal obligations and the supply of net new investable funds for the period 1966-75 appear in the JEC Study, State and Local Public Facility Financing, Vol. 2, p. 21. The figures indicate that funds available for investment in municipal bonds will be more than sufficient to meet the required borrowings by State and local governments after 1968. Relating this analysis to water pollution abatement, the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration (FWPCA) estimated the cost of attaining the ob- jectives set forth by the Water Quality Act at $14.9 billion for the period 1969-73, or an approximate annual average of $3.0 billion before any Federal grants. This comr~ares with the Joint Economic Committee~s estimate of average capi- tal outlays for approximately the same period of $2.0 billion, or an average annual difference of $1.0 billion. While no one could emphatically deny the in- crease volume might not have some effect on the bond market, the results should be minimal. The Clean Waters Restoration Act authorizes $3.5 billion in grants, roughly $306 million of which have been appropriated leaving an amount still authorized to be appropriated of approximately $3.1 billion. If this balance of Federal grant money were raised on a level basis for the 1969-73 period through the sale of tax-exempt bonds, it would amount to only $600 million a year, or 3.2 percent of the JEC estimate of the average tax-exempt bond market for the period. This is an amount which I believe this group would agree will have no measurable degree of impact on the bond market. This bill is also weak with regard to another important consideration. Most pollution abatement projects include the needed sewer systems and other at- tendant facilities which will not be eligible for the Federal guarantee. What this means is that many communities will have to incur the expense of two bond issues for the same project. Since the FWPCA currently provides no grants for sewer systems, perhaps they should consider a guarantee of this portion of a projec.t to alleviate the expense and confusion of two separate bond issues. Additionally, many local governments will encounter constitutional or statutory rate limitations or, as exists in some States, be restricted from issuing revenue bonds. The us~ of revenue `bonds is indicated by the compulsory requirements of user-fees. Also the provision that the interest subsidy shall not exceed an amount which would reduce by one-fourth the net effective interest rate is restrictive in that it does not assure local government that the increased interest costs of taxable bonds will be fully offset by the Federal subsidy. It is also unclear as to the reasoning for tying the interest subsidy to the Government bond market. In the first place, the Government is limited to a four and one-fourth percent interest ceiling and has not issued bonds for five years. It would seem much more reasonable to `tie the subsidy to a municipal bond market indicator such as the "Bond Buyer Weekly Municipal Averages." We also question the program's availaibility to population sizes of only 125,000 or larger. FWPCA figures show that cities of less than 25,000 and which repre- sented 20 percent of the 15.5. population in 1960 will account for 52 percent of 1969-73 capital outlays for sewer systems and waste treatment facilities. As the PAGENO="0703" 695 bill is written, many of the smaller communities which would benefit under the program will be eliminated. At this time I shall summarize in the briefest fashion the financing plan we proposed to the Department of the Interior. The concept was basically developed from the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The proposal would work as follows: The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration or other designated Fed- eral agencies would undertake by contract to make annual contributions to the local government which are sufficient to amortize obligations issued by the local government in principal amounts equal to the determined Federal share of the cost of the treatment facilities. The maximum period over which such annual contributions could be payable, and the obligations of the local government amortized, should be determined by the enabling legislation but relate to the useful life of a waste treatment facility. The program also anticipates utilizing a loan program patterned after the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and of the Urban Renewal Pro- gram, authorized by Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under the authorization of a Federal loan program and a program for the payment of annual contributions, a local government with requisite powers would be assured of having both the means to assure the financing of the total project cost as needed, as well as a method to synchronize the timing of the Federal financial assistance portion. The general procedure that a local government would follow in financing a project in this way would be as follows: One, enter into a loan and annual contributions contract with the FWPCA. Two, undertake the temporary financing of project cost, as required, by the issuance of notes secured by a requisition agreement with the FWPCA. Three, renew outstanding notes initially issued at maturity and issue new notes to finance additional project cost, all or said notes to be similarly secured by a requisition agreement with the FWPCA. Four, upon determination of final project cost, undertake the definitive financ- ing of the project and the retirement of all outstanding notes. The notes would be retired from the proceeds of bonds issued by the local government. Bonds so issued would constitute two series or issues, one secured solely by and payable from the annual contributions payable to the local government by the FWPCA and the second, representing the portion of the cost of the project to be provided locally, payable from such sources as ad valorem taxes, revenues, and assess- inents, as the local government may elect or be authorized to provide. Again, we would like to thank the members of the Committee for the oppor- tunity to present the views of the Investment Banking Industry on this subject. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, ]~,Te~v York, yy April 24, 1908. Representative JOHN BLATNIK, House Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BLATNIK: I was unable to appear at the Water Pollution Control Hearings April 24 to represent the National Audubon Society in a panel of con- servationists because bad weather prevented me from flying Washington as I had planned to do. Enclosed are some copies of the statement I had hoped to make. We would ap- preciate it if you would make this statement part of the hearing record. Yours truly, ROBERT C. BOARDMAN, Director, Public Information. STATEMENT BY ROBERT C. BOARDMAN I would like to emphasize two points. One is that, biologically speaking, the most productive parts of the sea are the coves and bays and estuaries and marshes and tidal flats at the water's edge- what we call the estuarine areas. The ocean depths are comparatively barren. By far the richest profusion of marine life grows in the shallows where the fresh water meets the salt. PAGENO="0704" 696 My second point is that these same estuarine areas are the part of the sea that is most vulnerable to pollution, and most frequently damaged by it. They are our most heavily used waters, and pollutants there cannot be dispersed and dilluted as they can in open waters. The most obvious value of unpolluted coastal waters is recreation. Swimmers, water-skiers and yachtsmen want clean water; duck hunters, fishermen, clam- mers and crabbers want productive waters. These are certainly important values for human enjoyment, and they support considerable economic values, like high- priced waterfront real estate development, marinas, bait & tackle shops and all the rest. More important, we believe, is the value of the estuarine areas in producing food for mankind. Acre for acre, estuarine areas generally support far more life than the richest farmland. It has been estimated that two-thirds of the food that man takes from the sea depends, directly or indirectly, on these areas. Either the fish (or shellfish or crustacean) lives entirely in these shallow and protected waters-or it spends some part of its life cycle there-or it lives outside but feeds on marine life that comes from there. On suburban Long Island, New York, an area I happen to be personally fa- miliar w-ith, the economic value of these marine-related recreational and com- mnercial activities has been estimated at $430-million a year. But conservationists believe there is more to be alarmed about than economic costs. We believe it is nothing less than a matter of human survival. Hunger is already a way of life for a large part of the world's population, and by even the most conservative projections of population trends, the next decade w-ill bring hundreds of millions more mouths to feed. Some say that only by scientific harvesting of food fiomn the sea can we hope to stave off famine of the most frightul proportions. Certainly it is foolhardy, in terms of human existence, to let pollution erode au-ny the richest food-producing areas of the sea. The estuarine area is threatened au along the coast. In the big harbor cities, with large numbers of ships and boats on the water and with dense induStrial and housing development along the waterfront, we have become accustomed to pollution. But with the phenomenal growth of pleasure craft in the past decade (there are some 8,000,000 of them now) and with our growing and affluent society searching out more and more waterside resorts, the flow of sewage and other pollutants is contaminating the little harbors and bays too. Oil pollution is a particular menace to the estuarine areas. Oil spills at sea generally wash ashore with the wind and tide, and collect in the shallows and on beaches. A coating of oil left by the retreating tide can blanket plant life and shellfish on the bottom, and, floating on top, foul the feathers of the sea birds. Furthermore, detergents which have been used in many cases to clean up the oil have inflicted more damage to shellfish and other marine life than did the oil. Estuarine areas, too, are often the victims of oil spills from waterside instal- lations, where tankers and barges unload and tank-trucks load, and careless- ness can cause pollution. We are concerned about any discharge into the estuarine area that inhibits life there. This includes so-called "thermal pollution" that can occur when hot water from `the `cooling system of a power plant `is poured Into the bay, raising the tem- perature and affecting marine life. It includes the oxygen-reducing effects of undue amounts `of fertilizer washing off field's into the water ways, or poisoning by the long-lasting types of chemical pesticides that wash off fields and orchards, *or anything else that upsets the productive balance in these `areas as well as the obviously `destructive discharges of some industrial processes `and health- menacing discharges of sewage. And of course, we are also concerned about pollution in rivers, lake's and other waters. Tn this `brief statement there Is no room or detailed discussion of the pollution- control `bills under your `consideration. in general terms, the National Audubon Society supports legislation to force more responsibility upon oil carriers and `shore installation's; to support `research-particularly on how to cope with oil spills on the high seals, a problem which `we `believe will continue to be more dif- ficult than finding lout how to contain and remove oil spilled on calm waters in harb'ors-~and to aid and `encourage `state and local action to control pollution. A's the representative of a national conservation organization, I came here to stress those twlo points I made at the `outset: that estualrine areas are a highly valuable resource and that they are particularly vulnerable to destruet'io~n from pollution. Particularly, I have emphasized the importance of this area in sup- PAGENO="0705" 697 plying the food man takes from the sea. We cannot afford to destroy any more of ft-the human race needs it to survive. Thank you. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Pabl4o Works, flouse bf Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dia&R MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a statement in support of H.R. 16559, a bill I have co-sponsored to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I would greatly appreciate it if you would include this statement in the record of hearings concerning this and Similar legislation. Thank you for this and for all past courtesies. Sincerely, THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Jr., Member of Congress. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, JR., EIGHTH DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present a statement in favor of strong anti-pollution legislation. I would like to commend this Committee for the work it has done to bring about a solution to the grave problem of coastal oil pollution. The large number of accidental and sometimes deliberate dumping of oil on both the high seas and territorial waters threatens major pollution damage to some of our finest beaches, to fish and waterfowl along our coasts. In 1967, several incidents involving oil tankers caused damage to some of Europe's finest beaches and did great harm to seafood resources. We are now facing the prospect of similar injury to our Nation's coastal recreation areas and fish beds. Oil tankers now account for more than 40% of our ocean traffic. We should act now to provide the necessary machinery to prevent damage from the accidental or deliberate spilling of oil. We must delegate the authority to have oil slicks eliminated immediately and have a legal deterrent to prohibit the discharge of oil upon the navigable waters of the United States, or adjoining shorelines, or into the waters of the con- tiguous zone. H.R. 16559, which I have co-sponsored, fills the need for strong legislation, and would provide the machinery for immediate act to prevent injury from oil discharge. By instantly delegating authority to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Coast Guard, this legislation would insure the elimination of oil slicks while Investigations as to cause were being conducted. The fatal delay that often occurs while blame is being laid, would be avoided. I urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to this much-needed legislation. Thank you. VIEws AND COMMENTS ON H.R. 15907, THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968, nv JAMES B. CourTEI~ Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am James B. Coulter, Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health Service, Maryland State Department of Health. I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment and present my views on H.R. 15907, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. Citizens of Maryland treasure their water resources which have contributed so abundantly to the wealth and enjoyment of the nation as well as to themselves. It is not surprising then, that the State has moved aggressively to curb water pollution and has shown an unstinting willingness to meet the cost of pollution control measures. For 20 years the program has improved step by step, always moving in the di- rection of a stronger Federal-State and local effort. County commissioners have supported State and local legislation with unanimity and consistency seldom seen on any issue. The State Legislature has faced controversial issues and adopted 94-370-E38------45 PAGENO="0706" 698 measure after measure, clearly accepting the fact that water pollution control is a State as well as a local responsibility. Maryland's congressional delegation over the years has rallied to the cause and made major contributions to the progressive evolution of the Federal Water Pollution Control Program. I am pleased to note that along with Mr. Blatnik, Mr. Fahlon of Maryland is a cospon- sor of 11.11. 15907, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1908. In this atmosphere of joint local, State and Federal effort, the step by step improvements in Federal legislation have stimulated corresponding improve- ments at the local and State levels. At this time, Maryland's program includes the following salient features: 1. Strong regulatory and enforcement powers are exercised when neces- sary at the State level. 2. County commissioners are authorized to create coimtywide sanitary authorities and more than two-thirds of the counties now have such an arrangement in effect. 3. It is recognized that planning for water and sewer services is a respon- sibility of elected officials who must make major financial commitments to implement the plans; therefore, a State law requires that comprehensive plans be prepared at the county level and approved by the State as a con- dition to financial support after 1970. 4. As they are developed, State agencies coordinate county plans as the first step toward the development of regional and river basin programs. 5. Every wastew-ater treatment plant in the State, industrial as well as municipal, must be under the supervision of a certified competent super- intendent by 1970. 6. This year, the State sponsored the training of more than 200 treatment plant superintendents at evening courses in junIor colleges and a curriculum for a two-year, full-time course is being developed and will be put into use in 1969. 7. The State shares the cost of sewage treatment plant construction and gives the county commissioners and town councils a guaranteed financing formula that they can depend on. In some respects the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 would further strengthen Maryland's program. The provision for a comprehensive estuaries study is especially welcome. Knowledge in this area is lacking and is sorely needed in Maryland where a large proportion of extremely valuable waters fall into the tidewater and wetlands categories to be included in the study. I wonder, however, if the magnitude of the task has not been grossly underrated. In Maryland alone, we have more than 4,000 miles of tidewater shoreline and ap- proximately 340,000 acres of wetlands, much of which would be included in the estuaries study. A more realistic date for the final report might be January 30, 1980 instead of the 1970 date proposed in Section 5(c). Likewise, I am of the opinion that the cost of the total study, considering all of the estuarines of the United States, will be $25,000,000 rather than the $2000,000 authorized in Section 5(e). I strongly endorse the provisions of Section 6. The continuation of viable research, demonstrations, investigations, training, and information elements of the program at the Federal level are vital to the efficiency of State and local programs. A person dares not dwell on the duplication of effort and competition for scarce technical talent that would develop if each State were forced to dupli- cate these activities now centralized at the Federal level. I regret to inform you, however, that in my opinion certain proposed changes in the construction grant provisions will not benefit our joint efforts in Mary- land. In fact, the proposed changes would almost certainly cause confusion and serve to retard the rate of progress which is being made. Over the years, the construction grant program of the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration has been highly successful. In discussions with other Federal agencies we have often cited it as a desirable example. Even though funds appropriated to support the Federal construction grant program have never been great enough to match the willingness of Maryland's com- munities to construct water pollution abatement works, the grants have had a powerful stimulating effect. The 1966 amendments were particularly helpful. The provision for repayment of State funds advanced to cover deficiencies in Federal grant offers made it possible for Maryland to arrange a financing for- mula combining State and Federal funds designed to eliminate our backlog needs for municipal sewage treatment plants by 1971. PAGENO="0707" 699 This notable goal is possible because, from the first Federal enabling legisla- tion in 1957, Maryland has made an outright grant from State funds for every water pollution abatement project that received a Federal grant offer. 000pera- tion with Federal officials has been a model of excellence, and with their help the State program has been liberalized through successive acts of the General Assembly to keep pace with the advancing Federal program. A highly effective formula has evolved whereby Maryland guarantees that a 75 percent combined Federal-State grant will be made available to every eligible project whenever a community is willing and able to proceed. By an overwhelming majority, the last session of the General Assembly en- acted the Governor's water pollution control program which provides: 1. An outright 25 percent grant from the State for every project receiving a Federal grant offer. 2. An advance of any deficiency in Federal funds to meet the Federal offer. Maryland is fully qualified under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and therefore, every comu~unity is eligible for a 50 percent Federal grant. (Thus, the guaranteed Federal-State combined grant is 75 percent, with the full amount made available from State funds at the time the com- munity is ready to proceed.) This guarantee is possible even though the Federal funds available at this time are equal to less than 7 percent of the eligible cost of approved projects. 3. The bonus for comprehensive planmng awarded under the Federal Act goes to the community with prepaymeiit from State funds. (Thus, many communities aie guaranteed an 80 percent combined grant.) 4. When a Maryland co~nmunity is aw-arded a Federal grant to demon- sErate new or improved sewage treatment methods, the State shares the non- Federal portion of the cost equally with the community. 5. Funds have been set aside to meet the non-Federal cost of water pollu- tion abatement w-orks at State-operated facilities without going through the time-consmning project by project budget justification in the annual State budget. 6. Four million dollars has bee~i authorized to match Federal grants for river basin projects under section 3 (c) of the Federal Act. 7. Twenty-five million dollars has been placed in a revolving fund to make long-term, low-interest loans to finance the extension of sewers and other w-orks not eligible for Federal grants. S. Other provisions of the State Act are included to provide for a fully effective Federal-State-local program. As illustrated by the points enumerated above. Maryland's program is inti- mately geared to the Federal program thus heightening our concern over the adverse impact that a few changes proposed in HR. 15907 might have. For instance, every project found to be eligible for a Federal grant must receive State support. To relieve communities of the high interest cost involved in obtaining construction loans, Maryland advances 25 percent of the grant eligible portion of a project's cost as soon as contracts are let. Otherwise, the State accepts the inspections and a udits of the Federal Government and paymeiits from State funds are made when Federal payments are authorized. Throughout, effort has been mac de to prevent duplication of w-ork and eliminate confusion caused by multiple sets of possible conflicting regulations by siniply accepting the Federal regulation and Procedures. Adherence to this principle has resulted in substantial reduction of administrative costs and time delays in processing grant applications. Commenting specifically on the provisions of HR. 15907, Section 2(c) elimi- nating the prepayment provision authorized by the 1966 amendments would be a cruel blow to our program. Maryland's law established a sanitary facilities fund. Monies received from the Federal Government at a later date in payment for funds advanced by the State to cover the Federal l)ortiOfl of a grant are returned to this fund, Thus monies repaid by the Federal Government are Placed in a fund which is used solely for sewage treatment works and are not returned to the general revenue of tile State. Predicated on the trust and assumption that Federal appropriations would ~natoh tile authorized amounts as soon as tile current financial hind is resolved, repayment of Federal advances to the sanitary facilities fund will guarantee our comnmunities a 75 percent State and Federal grant for approximately 10 years. This purpose might be accomplished under the contract arrangement of Section F(1) provided that the tax exempt status of State funds could be preserved. PAGENO="0708" 700 Money for the sanitary facilities fund comes from the sale of general revenue bonds and are repaid from real estate taxes. When the State borrows money through the sale of bonds, the funds from that one sale may be and usually are allocated for a number of purposes. Outside of the constitutional issue, it would greatly increase the administrative cost if a specific type of bond were sold only for the specific purpose of constructing sewage treatment works. Although I recognize that our situation does not prevail throughout the country, the contract provisions would not be attractive to our local communities. If the premise is accepted that each of the partners, Federal, State and local, is obligated to share in the cost of treatment works, it is somewhat incongruous to visualize our local communities in the role of banker for the Federal Government. Almost without exception they are having difficulty funding many high priority needs including schools, hospitals, and other public improvements as well as sewage treatment plants within the debt limitations imposed by charter or constitution. Under the grant arrangement in Maryland, a community must now raise only 25 percent of the eligible cost of sewage treatment works thereby relieving part of their bonding capacity for other needs. Under the contract arrangement, the local community would be obliged to sell bonds amounting to 75 percent of the grant eligible cost. Section 2F(3) is particularly objectionable. To single out bonds sold to finance sewage treatment works and require that they be taxable has the effect of taxing sewage treatment works. The sale of this specific type of bond might not be permissible in Maryland and would certainly increase the administrative cost of financing. The interest rate on these bonds would be considerably higher than the interest rate on tax free bonds. If the excess cost is rebated by the Federal Government as proposed, it is difficult to see where this vastly com- plicating factor would provide revenue to the Federal Government. If fact, when administrative costs are considered it is difficult to see anything other than a net loss of revenue resulting from making the bonds taxable. In general, we agree with the provisions of Section F(5) commencing on Page 5 of the bill. (There seems to be a confusing duplication of numbering coin- mencing with (4) at the bottom of Page 7.) If the contract provision is accepted, it probably should be limited to larger towns and metropolitan areas. We are particularly pleased with paragraph (B) w-hich will strengthen both the Federal aiid State hand in requiring communities to move in a coordinated and com- prehensive fashion toward the development of areawide waste treatment systems. Paragraph (C) is bothersome. The collection and treatment of wastes with the objectives of convenience, esthetics, and protection of health and prevention of nuisances are local in nature. That portion of the total costs required to meet those `objectives should be reflected in charges borne directly by the persons using the sewerage system. However, the benefits implicit in meeting the high water quality standards established for the State of Maryland are widespread and general in nature. I believe that the charges made to meet these higher stand- ards should not be borne solely by the users of the system but should be shared by the State and Federal Governments. For instance, a town on the north branch of the Potomac River might be required to remove phosphorous to help eliminate the threat of eutrophication in the Washington Metropolitan Area so that the river in the vicinity of our Capital remains a show place for the Nation. While as a citizen of the Nation, the mayor of that town might accept that objective and be willing to pay for it through State and Federal taxes, he would have a hard time convincing his council and the citizens of his town that they should bear the cost alone. Perhaps the illustration is oversimplified or. on the other hand, understated. The point is that, unlike other utility services, the rates charged for sewage treatment under our modern concept of water pollution control should not reflect the entire cost of water pollution control works nor should they reflect the entire cost of operation and maintenance. I support the provision of Section 2(g) which give the Secretary authority to require efficient operation of sewage treatment works as a condition for Federal assistance. Further, I suggest that any doubt concerning the application of the provisions of (g) (1) and (2) to the grant portion of the act be eliminated by substituting this wording for the rather general provisions now contained in Section 8(c) of the Act. In summary, I laud the purposes of `the Water Quality Improvement Act of 19G8 designed to strengthen and improve the national water pollution control PAGENO="0709" 701 efforts at all levels of government. I am apprehensive that the time and cost factors of the comprehensive estuaries study have been grossly underestimated. With all due respect, the "contract" proposal should be carefully reevaluated from the standpoint of its compatibility with local financing practices and its potential for assisting ongoing State programs. Abandonment of the "repayment" provision and loss of tax exempt status for bonds sold to finance pollution con- trol works are particularly damaging features. I would prefer to see the con- struction grant changes (contract features) deleted entirely if the inclusion of the loss of repayment possibilities and the loss of tax exemption are non- negotiable conditions for passage of that portion of the bill. I have one further suggestion not specifically related to HR. 15907, but none- theless germane. Perhaps the time has come for careful examination of the method of financing Federal grants for water pollution control projects. The size of the anticipated expenditures that will be required to meet the national objec- tives may be too great to continue to absorb from current revenue. There could be merit in examining specific sources of revenue that might be developed and earmarked to pay for these works. One beneficial result might be a more direct relationship between those benefiting from clean water and those paying the bill for water pollution control. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE MARITIME LAW ASsOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Maritime Law Association of the United States (herein "MLA") is an organization of about 2,000 members, founded in 1899, whose members are engaged in every possible facet of mari- time law, including representation of substantially all American shipowners operating passenger vessel, general cargo vessels, tankers and other bulk car- riers engaged in the foreign and domestic trades of the United States, as well as their underwriters. The representation also includes licensed and unlicensed seamen. At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the MLA on February 19, 1968, the following members of our Association were appointed to constitute a Special Committee to report and make recommendations on H.R. 14000. The Special Com- mittee members are John F. Gerity, Chairman (Member of the Executive Com- mittee) ; Burton H. White, Member (Chairman, Committee on Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) ; and Gordon W. Paulsen, Member (Chairman, Commit- tee on Matters Concerning the Coast Guard Regulations). At the Annual Meeting of the Membership of the MLA on May 3, 1968, the aforesaid Special Committee was given authorization to present the views of the MLA to this Committee. The MLA is in complete sympathy with the task of this Committee and offers its cooperation and good offices to enact meaningful and enlightened legislation to prevent and alleviate those damaged by the pollution by oil of the navigable waters and shorehine~ of this nation. This Special Oommittee has reviewed drafts of the testimony before the Pub- lic Works Committee of the House of Representatives and drafts of proposed changes in H.R. 14000 as put forward by the American Petroleum Institute (herein "API") and to the extent indicated below approves and endorses such proposals. It must be borne in mind however that the views of tue API are necessarily circumscribed by tne interests of the oil industry. That institute has emphasized excessive liability for shipowners and through possible inadvertance negated by exclusion `shore installations from the subject coverage of H.R. 14000. The MLA, on the other hand, is concerned with the welfare of the entire maritime industry and maritime personnel. Accordingly, in suggesting revisions of the proposed legislation the MLA has sought to promote the Congressional intent of preventing oil pollution of Umiitecl States waters in a manner which will not unnecessarily penalize the American Merchant Marine and punish mari- time shipboard employees. The MLA, mindful of the precedents established in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, takes a broad view of the problenis confronting this Committee and is hopeful that the suggestions made herein will be helpful in preventing oil pollution while at the same time that the resulting legislation will not unduly hurt the maritime industry or depart from long established and cherished principles of law. The Membership of the MLA has respectfully authorized us to present the fol~ lowing points: PAGENO="0710" 702 1. Any liability including liability for clean-up costs must be based on negligence, namely an admission or on a finding of fault; 2. The principles of limitation of shipowners' liability upon proper proof of the right by law to claim limitation of liability must be preserved for the well-being of the maritime industry which in turn is essential for the in- terest of domestic and foreign commerce and for the economy of this na- tion. However, we do assert that it is time for the United States to increase the limits of liability upon reasonable and realistic terms as provided by the principles of the "International Convention on the Limitation of Ship- owners' Liability", written at the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law, Brussels, September 30-October 10, 1957, (the "Brussels Convention, 1957"). 3. The bill as presently written is probably not insurable. If insurable the premiums would doubtless be exorbitant. 4. Compulsory insurance should not be required for any law on this subject. 5. Penalties against a person's professional license or document should only be imposed on proof of negligence-so also, the other penalties l)rOPosecT in the present bill except where the unlawful act of omission is willful. I. LIADILITY IN CONNECTION wITH OIL POLLUTION SHOULD ONLY BE IMPOSED UPON A FINDING OF A FAULT Section 19(e) of the Bill imposes upon shipowners liability to the United States, for the full cost of removal of oil in addition to the other penalties pro- videci under the bill. The only exception under subsection (e) is a discharge due to an Act of God. Thus, irrespective of fault, shipowners would be compelled to hear the cost of clean-up in all cases except an Act of God. The imposition of liability irrespective of fault is unquestionably contrary to every well-settled principle of our law, the general maritime law and the laws of practically every maritime nation. Before any person may be held liable under the proposed statute it should be required that his legal responsi- bility for the occurrence and damages be established, and that such liability be based upon an admission of or finding of negligence or willful violation of the statute. Under the proposed bill a completely innocent shipowner would be subject to the severe civil and penal burdens of the bill even though responsi- bility should have been properly imposed prima facie or on proper proof on another. To punish for wanton, willful or even negligent dumping of oil is one thing; to impose total and excessively costly liability in the absence of fault or even knowledge is another thing altogether. Assume that a vessel, proceeding on her proper course, overruns an un- marked sunken wreck, or a vessel moored to a wharf comes to rest on a sunken obstruction with the ebb of the tide, as a result of which the vessel's tanks are breached and oil leaks onto the water. Under I-JR. 1400 the shipowner would be liable for the clean-up or otherwise responsible to the United States Government for the cost of clean-up, and his vessel would be subject to in rem liability and a $10,000 penalty even in the absence of fault and notwithstanding that responsibility may properly rest with the United States for failure to take appropriate action with respect to the sunken wreck or that liability may ultimately be properly imposed on the wharf owner for failure to provide a safe berth. Obviously, the penal provision of subsection (d) should not apply to acci- dental discharges of oil. Such a penalty if necessary, should at most apply to negligent discharges. But, even more important, in view of the substantial costs of clean-up which may be involved, an innocent shipowner should never be subjected to such expense in the absence of wrong doing on his part. Such imposition of liability is not only out of harmony with economic realities but is also contrary to settled principles of responsibility under martime law. Subsection (i), without regard to willful acts, hut upon mere violation of the provisions of the bill, provides for the arrest and taking into custody of alleged violators, with or without process. Further, under subsection (g), also without regard to volitional acts, the licenses of the master and officers of an allegedly offending vessel are subject to suspension or revocation. In effect the bill estab- lishes an oil pollution police department authorized to place persons under arrest without process. What will he the effect of such legislation on foreign mariners and their governments? It is foreseeable that legislation by other PAGENO="0711" 703 countries may be enacted in reprisal. The consequences of alleged violations under the bill, although not willful, are arrest and incarceration possibly with- out process, and loss of one's license which would mean the loss of one's liveli- hood for self and family, all in consequence of an unintended act of negligence or even without a suspicion of negligence. It is inconceivable that such harsh and perhaps unconstitutional consequences could be the legislative intent. API has proposed that shipowners be required to produce proof of financial capability to pay the severe financial burdens proposed under the bill. The MLA urges that such a provision not be enacted into the law. Such a requirement is not a workable way to cope with the problem at band, unless it is done on the basis of an international convention. If required unilaterally by our government, not only from U. S. flag vessel owners but owners of foreign flag vessels trading into our ports, retaliatory measures could well be expected to be taken by other nations. The lack of uniformity could create almost insoluble problems in pro- viding insurance coverage. However, should it be deemed advisable that proof of financial capability be required, a usual certificate of insurance or certificate of entry with a recognized insurance carrier or club should be acceptable, pro- vided however, that compulsory insurance should not be required. Such a require- ment affecting the ships of many nations is unnecessary and arbiitrary. The in rem rights against the vessel are preserved in the proposed legislation. The costs of insurance to cover the liability without fault as suggested under the bill could well be prohibitive, if obtainable at all (see transcript of testimony of April 24, 1968 hearing, pp. 452 and 470 B). This combined with the fact that HR. 14000, as drafted, negates any right on the part of a shipowner to limit its liability creates an uninsurable situation, because exposure to risk cannot rensonably be measured. II. LIABILITY TO THE UNITED STATES FOR CLEAN-UP COSTS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A SHIPOWNER'S RIGHT TO LIMIT LIABILITY-BUT THE UNITED STATES LIMITATION LAW SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO CONSONANCE WITH THE INCREASED LIMITS OF THE 1957 CONVENTION. As above stated, the MLA Supports reasonable legislation designed to prevent oil pollution and provide a proper measure of liability therefor. However, the majority view is that MLA is unalterably opposed to the destruction of a ship- owner's right to limitation of liability. All maritime nations provide for some form of limitation of a shipowner's lia- bility, the major ones by adhering to the principles of the 1957 convention. Such right is rooted in the universally recognized principle that it is a paramount consideration for maritime nations to preserve the continuity of maritime com- merce as a matter of vital national interest. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee to briefly review the history of limitation statutes. Limitation of shipowners' liability was adopted in France in 1681 and in England in 1734. The first Congressional act in the United States was passed in 1851. Such act was later amended in 1936 to provide an additional fund to be available in instances of death and injury to passengers, crew mem- bers and others. The principle of shipowner's limitation of liability is recognized in the report of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate-87th Congress, 2d session, Report No. 1602, dated June 15, 1962, Calendar No. 1562-submitted by Senator Bartlett to accompany a bill, 5. 2314, in the 87th Congress relating to the limita- tion of liability of shipowners in the following terms: "The law of every maritime nation permits owners to limit liability to some extent. The concept springs from the practical economic need to insu- late shipowners from the ruinous liability that could result from maritime disasters.. It recognizes that the ship, unlike other property, normally oper- ates in distant areas where the owner cannot personally see to its safe navi- gation and management, and that the ship is subject to unusual perils and hazards of the sea. Because of these considerations and to encourage, as a matter of public policy, investment in shipping, the shipowner may be relieved in part from the consequences of torts, such as negligence in navigation, unless the casualty is a result of his own fault or privity." To deprive the United States shipowners of their right to limit liability as is provided under the present bill would be a further step in the direction of placing the United States Merchant Marine at a fatal disadvantage in international commerce. PAGENO="0712" 704 The Brussels Convention of 1957 was brought before the Committee on Com- merce of the U.S. Senate in bills S. 2314 and S. 550 during the 2d session of the 87th Congress in July, 1961 and in the 88th Congress, as an act entitled "Ship- owners' Limitation of Liability Act, 1962," and reported with amendment in June, 1962, Report No. 1603, Calendar No. 1563. The Maritime Law Association at that time urged that the Brussels Convention of 1957 be made the law of this nation as set forth in bills S. 2314 and 5. 556. However such bills were not en- acted into law. Thereafter, in 1966, adoption of the Brussels Convention, 1957, into our law was again proposed to the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, by bill S. 3251 at which time the MLA affirmed its continued view `that the provisions of the con- vention be enacted into law (see resolution attached as Appendix A). This Special Committee is authorized again to urge that the provisions for limitation of shipowners' liability contained in the Brussels Convention of 1957, be made the law of this land. At no time when the above bills were under consideration did the government take the position that shipowners should be deprived of their right to limit lia- bility with respect to property damage. Bill 14000 as presently proposed is the only known attempt to deprive shipowners of such right. Thus it can be seen that the change in law as now proposed by bill 14000 would be a drastic step not in harmony with maritime history as to limitation of lia- bility. Based upon realistic considerations, including the need for attracting private capital to support shipping in foreign and domestic commerce and the preserva- tion and continuity of our merchant marine as a national asset, the proposed bill should clearly preserve shipowners' right to limit liability. III. MLA'S SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS OF HR. 14000 Attached hereto is a redraft of Section 19 of H.R. 14000. It will be noted that tile redraft embodies a number-but by no means all-of the suggestions which were incorporated in a redraft prepared by the API, and a number of other changes which are being urged by the MLA. We give you below our comments, keyed into the sections of our redraft, concerning changes suggested by the MLA: SEC. 19. (a) (1) The addition of the adjective "persistent" is made to bring this legislation into line with the coverage of the IMCO convention which is now being worked out. (2) and (3) It seems clearer to define "owner" and "operator" separately and somewhat more explicitly. (11) Since the word "immediately" is used in the proposed bill it seems to us helpful to include a definition. SEC. 19. (b) Oil discharges resulting from Acts of God, war and sabotage should obviously not be considered unlawful. SEC. 19. (d) The phrase "causes the discharge" is considerably broader in its scope than the word "discharges" and, when combined with the adverb "negli- gently" makes it clear that any vessel or shore installation which negligently causes such discharge is subject to the fine even though it may not be tile actual source of the discharge. Consideration could, perhaps, also be given to broaden- ing the scope even further so that the penalty would be personal and include "any person." SEC. 19. (e) The addition of the phrase "which negligently discharges or per- mits, causes or contributes to the discharge of oil" is considerably broader in scope than the original language and properly puts the burden on the "culprit" (a word used in the course of these hearings) to clean-up the results of his negligence. The word "shall" makes it clear that the Government must act in situations where the negligent owner fails to act, and the addition of the phrase "or other person whose negligence caused or contributed to such dis- charge of oil" makes it clear that it is the culprit who has to pay tile reasonable costs of the clean-up operation performed by the Government. The exclusion of the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law" is essential to preserve tile rights `of vessel owners and shore operators, and `to eliminate the very real probability that the bill as originally drafted would, l)y creating uninsurable risks, result in the legislation being self-defeating, since w-ithout insurance many shipowTners would not be able to meet the obligation to pay clean-up costs. (See Transcript page 446). See also the discussion ill sac- PAGENO="0713" 705 tion II above. The phrase "Provided, that there shall be no such liability where such discharge was due to an Act of God" is excised as being unnecessary be- cause, under this redraft, negligence is the basis for liability. If negligence is not to be the basis for liability, then there would have to be a niyriad of other exclusions in order for the legislation to be fair-for example; w-ar, sabotage, acts of trespassers or other unauthorized persons, etc. SEc. 19. (f) This section as proposed by the API provides for the reversal of the burden of proof discussed by Mr. Shearer at page 454 of the Transcript of April 24th hearings and which is, we understand, recommended for incorporation in the proposed IMCO convention. That position may be justified for reasons of inter- national agreements. Our law providing for burden of proof under the prin- ciple of re~ ipsa ioquitvr protects our government and our citizens. The balance of this new section as proposed by the API is designed to niake it clear that the Secretary of the Interior can proceed against anyone whose negligence caused or contributed to the discharge of oil and also to prevent the reversal of burden of proof in favor of the Secretary from affecting the rights of vessels or shore instal- lations against each other. SEC. 19. (g) The suggested additional phrase broadens the uses to which the revolving fund can be put. SEC. 19. (h) As stated by Mr. Calhoun, President of MEBA, in testifying before this committee on April 25th, the suspension or revocation of a license without a finding of negligence or willfulness imposes "an intolerable burden on American maritime officers and other seamen." SEC. 19. (j) The addition of a specific provision for research and issuance of technical information seems wise. SEC. 19. (k) This section is necessary in order to preserve rights of owners of shore installations or vessels who pay for clean-up operations initially. SEC. 19. (1) This is the "Good Samaritan" provison testified to by Mr. Checkett on April 24th. SEC. 19. (m) The deletions and changes are designed to protect the civil rights of persons suspected of violating this statute, and also to preserve the constitu- tionality of this section. SEC. 19. (o) This new section makes it clear that the Federal Government pre- empts this field insofar as navigable waters or adjacent shorelines are concerned. Such pre-emption is conducive to uniform laws and enforcement thereof-all making for equal treatment of citizens or foreign nationals alike under law. CONCLUSION In its zeal to enact legislation to improve the condition of the waters and shorelines of the United States, Congress should not overlook other essential aspects of the American social and economic scene. The MLA suggests that H.R. 14000 as originally drafted has fatal flaws~ which not only may adversely affect our merchant marine and international trade but, by so doing, make the legislation largely self-defeating. It is submitted that the MLA redraft of Section 1~9 of H.R. 14000 will be more effective than the original in dealing with the prob- lein of oil pollution while at the same time preserving well established principles of maritime and constitutional law. Respectfully submitted. JOHN F. GERITY. BURTON H. WHITE. GORDON W. PAULSEN. Dated: New York, N.Y., May 24, 1908. APPENDIX A RESOLUTIONS OF THE MARITIME LAW ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE To the U.~S. frS1enate Committee on Commerce, 89th Congress, 2d ~Session: Whereas a bill, 5. 3251, has been introduced and referred to the Committee on Commerce to repeal the laws authorizing limitation of shipowners' liability for personal injury or death, to require evidence of adequate financial responsibility to pay judgments for personal injury and death, or to repay fares in the event of nonperformance of voyages, or for other purposes; 94-376-68--46 PAGENO="0714" 706 Whereas a special meeting of the Executive Committee of The Maritime Law Association of the United States was held in the City of New York on May 17, 1966, to consider the views of The Maritime Law Association of the United States on legislation now pending before Congress with respect to limitation of liability and to authorize an expression of the Association's views, if any, to the appropriate legislative coimnittees with respect to the aforesaid Bill; Whereas after due deliberation of the provisions of the aforesaid Bill, includ- lag specifically Section 1 thereof, by the members of the Executive Committee present at such meeting, it is unanimously Resolved that this Association' views be presented by this Resolution to the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate in connection with the aforesaid Bill, including Section 1 thereof, dealing with limitation of ship- owners' liability for personal injury and death; And it is further resolved that this Association requests the Committee on Commerce to reconsider the evidence in support of the Report and the Report No. 1602, 87th Congress, Second Session. United States Senate, Calendar No. 1562, as evidence in the Hearing before this Committee on Commerce and as reflecting tIme continued views of the Maritime Law Association of the United States; And it is further resolved that Section 3 of the Bill. S. 3251, being the financial responsibility provision of said Bill, constitutes justified legislation, more par- ticularly with respect to non-shipowners receiving cruise revenues and then defaulting. J. EDWIN CAREY, Secretary. STATE OF NEW YORK, County of New York, ss: I, J. Edwin Carey, Secretary of The Maritime Law Association of the United States, do hereby certify and attest that at a special meeting of the Executive Committee of The Maritime Law Association of the United States duly called and held at No. 96 Ful'ton Street, New York, New York, on the 17th day of May, 1966, at which a quorium of the Executive Committee was present the prefixed Resolutions were unanimously adopted by the said Executive Committee. J. EDWIN CARNEY, Secretary. Sworn to before months of May, 1966. CLARA A. LAURO, Notary Public, State of New York. APPENDIX B MLA's REDRAFT OF THE OIL POLLUTION CONTROL SECTION or H.R. 14000 (Note: API changes are indicated by single underlining and MLA additions by double underlining. Deletions from original shown are in linetype as follows.) SEC. (3) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended is amended by redesignating Sections 19 as Section 20 and by inserting after Section 15 a new section to read as follows: "OIL POLLUTION CONTROL "SEC. 19. (a) For the purposes of this section, the term- "(1) `oil' means persistent floating oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with other matter, in such quantities as to constitute or threaten to constitute an immediate public nuisance or to interfere with or threaten to interfere with the beneficial use of the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of the United States; "(2) `owner' means any individual or organization which hOlds title to a vessel or shore installation; "(3) `operator', means `any charterer who mans victuals and navigates a vessel at his own expense, or by his own procurement, or any individual or organization which leases or operates a shore installation; PAGENO="0715" 707 "(4) E~ `vessel' includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water; "(5)-(4)- `public vessel' means a vessel owned and operated by the United States, or by a State or, by a foreign nation, or except where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities, by a foreign nation; "(6) ks)- `shore installation' means any building, structure, contrivance, or device, including, but not limited to, a terminal facility, manufacturing or industrial plant, drilling facility, pipeline, pumping station, pier, wharf, or dock, which is used in the handling or processing of oil and which is located in or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States; "(7) - `discharge' means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of oil; "(8) )-(~)- `navigable waters of the United States' means all portions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and all inland waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States; "(9) (8)- `United States' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, anft the Virgin Islands; "(10) `remove' or `removal' refers to the taking of reasoiiable and ap propriate measures to mitigate the potential_damage of_discharge; and "(11) `immediately' means at the earliest reasonably practicable time after knowledge of the event, having regard to the circumstances and con ditions of the particular case. (b) Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property, Act of God, war, sabotage, collision, standing, or unavoidable accident, and except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section, it is unlawful to discharge or permit the discharge of oil by any method, means, or manner into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines of the United States. "(c) Any owner or operator of a vessel, other than a public vessel, or a shore installation, or any employee thereof, who willfully violates the provisions of subsection (b) of this section or the regulations issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both, for each offense. "(d) Any vessel, other than a public vessel, or any shore installation which willfully or negligently causes the discharge of oil in violation of subsection (b) of this section or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $10,000. Clearance of a vessel liable for this penalty from a port of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is paid or until a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. The penalty shall constitute a lien on such vessel which may be recovered by action in rem in the district court of the United States for any district within which such vessel may be found. "(e) The owner or operator df a vessel or. shore installation which willfully or negligently discharges or permits, causes or contributes to the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines shall remove such discharged oil immediately from such waters and shorelines in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this section. If such owner or operator fails to so act, the Secretary ~ey shall remove the oil or arrange for its removal from such waters and shorelines, and such owner or operator &~d~ &s ~pp~ep~ frteT the ~esee1 ~4 the sheee 4m~4a~1etiei~ or other persons whose negligence caused or contributed to such discharge of oil and, as appro priate, the vessel shall be liable, ~iew4ths4~ai~dieg &~y et7hee p~'e~c4e4e~ ef Jew to the United States in addition to the penalties prescribed in this section, for the full amount of the actual costs reasonably incurred by the Secretary under this PAGENO="0716" 708 subsection. 4~w~4deI7 td~&t the+e shall be ~o s~Feh liability where aaeh diseheege was this to a~ 4et of ~ed~ Clearance of a vessel liable for such costs from a port of the United States may be withheld until such costs are paid or until a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. Such costs shall constitute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered by action in rem in the district court of the United States for any district within which such vessel may he found. `(f) In any action instituted by the Secretary of the Interior under sub section (e) of this section, evidence of the discharge of oil from a vessel or shore installation shall constitute a prima fade case of liability on the part of the owner or operator of such vessel or shore installation or, as appropriate, the vessel for the costs of removal as provided for in subsection (e) of this section, and the burden of rebutting such prima facie case shall be upon such owner or operator. The Secretary of the Interior shall also have a cause of action under subsection (e) of this section against any other person whose negligence is found to have caused or contributed to the discharge of oil from a vessel or shore installation involved in a collision or other casualty. The burden of rebutting the prima fade, case of liability which the Secretary shall have against the vessel or the owner or operator of the vessel or shore installa- tion from which the oil is discharged shall in no way affect any rights which such owner or operator may have against any otl1er vessel or persons whose willful act or negligence may in anyway have caused or contributed to such discharge of oil. "(g) (f) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to a revolving fund, which is established in the Treasury, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subsection (e) of this section. Any funds received by the United States in payment of any actual costs incurred by the Secretary pursuant to said subsection and any penalties collected for any violation of this section shall also be deposited into said fund for such purpose, and for research purposes as set forth in subsection (1) of this section. All sums appropriated to, or deposited into, said fund shall remain available until expended. "(h~" (g) The Commandant of the Coast Guard may, subject to the provisions of section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46 TJ.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other licensed officer of aoy ~esseI found willfully or negligently violating the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. "(i) (h) The Secretary shall issue regulations which (1) will set forth tl~e methods and procedures to be followed in removing oil from the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines of the United States, (2) will facilitate the enforcement of this section, and (3) will assist in l)reventing the Pollution of the navigable waters of the United States. The Secretary may also issue regulations which authorize the discharge of oil from a vessel or shore installation in quantities, under conditions, and at times and locations, deemed appropriate by the Secretary, after taking into consideration various factors such as the effect of such discharge on the public health or welfare, recreation, fish and wildlife, and navigation. "(j) The Secretary shall engage in such research as may assist in the removal of oil from navigable waters and adjoining shorelines and shall publish such findings and technical information. There are hereby authorized to be appro priated such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection. `(k) An owner or operator_who shall remove oil discharged from its vessel or shore installation shall be entitled to reimbursement from any other person, vessel or the United States for the reasonable costs expended for removal when PAGENO="0717" 709 such discharge resulted from the willful act or negligence of such other person, vessel or the United States. When such discharge results from the joint negligence of two or more owners or operators, or their vessels, or shore installations, each shall be liable to the others for its pro rata share of the costs of removal. "(1)_Any person who renders assistance in removing oil from the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines shall not be held liable, not- withstanding any other provision of law, for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering such assistance, or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further assistance in removing such oil, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. `(rn) (I) The provisions of this section and the regulations issued thereunder shall be enforced by authorized personnel of the Department of the Interior and by authorized personnel of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operat- ing. The Secretary may utilize by agreement with or without reimbursement law enforcement officers or other personnel and facilities of other Federal agenc~es to carry out the provisions of this section and the regulations issued thereundor, including the enforcement thereof. The Secretary is also encouraged t entor into agreements or other arrangements with any State in carrying out the pro- visions of this section, including the enforcement thereof. Such Federal personnel are authorized to ~weae ~A p~eess afid te surest a~id take lete e÷ietedy~ with er witheut preeess proceed aaainst anyone who violates the provisions of this section or the regulations issued thereunder in their presence or view, and to take summon such person I ediately for examination or trial before a United States commissioner cr court of competent jurisdiction. The judges of the United States district courts and the district courts of Guam and the Virgin Islands and the United States commissioners may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process as may he required to enforce this section and the regulations. (a) ~ In the ease of Guam, actions arising under this section shall be brought in the district court of Guam and in the case of the Virgin Islands, such actions shall be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands. In the case of Amer- ican Samoa, such actions shall be brought in the United States district court for the district of Hawaii and such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions. `(0) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law this section shall represent the sole remedy available to the United States for any civil or criminal penalties with respect to the discharge of oil and the costs of removal of oil from the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. Further, this section supersedes all Federal, and preempts all State or Municipal laws, in cluding those laws of the Commonw-ealth of Puerto Rico, and the American territories of Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands regulating the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable_waters__of the United States or adjoining shorelines or the removal of such oil. (b) Redesignated section 15 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is amended by deleting the following: "the Oil Pollution Act, 1024. or" (c) The Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 604), as amended (80 Stat. 1246- 1252), is hereby repealed. AMdRICAN MERCHANT MARINE INsTITUTE, INC., Washington, D.C., April 30, 1968. Hon. GEORGE FALL0N, Chairman, Committee on Public Tvorks, ~ House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Mv DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We respectfully request that this letter be made part of the record of the Committee's hearings on April 23-25 and be included as an appendix to my testimony of April 24. We would like to submit our comments on HR. 16207-to amend the Federal `Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to control pollution from vessels PAGENO="0718" 710 within the navigable waters of the United States. This bill, largely regulatory in nature, provides for comprehensive regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior governing the discharge of sewage, ballast and bilge water, litter, sludge, garbage, or other substances of any kind or description other than oil or dredge spoil, into the navigable waters of the United States or the contiguous zone. Violations of these regulations would result in a criminal penalty not exceeding $2,500.00 or imprisonment not exceeding one year and a civil penalty of not more than $10,000. In general, our statement will deal with certain procedural rights connected with the promulgation of regulations, and which agency should have primary control over certifying shipboard pollution devices and over the promulgation and enforcement of rules. In addition, we will discuss certain discrepancies in the bill and the vexing problem of retrofit. We are, of course, greatly concerned with the problem of pollution of the seas by noxious materials, and have so stated unequivocally before the Subcommittee on Oil and Water Pollution of the Senate Commerce Committee just last June. Thus, we are in favor of the overall objectives of H.R. 16207. However, there are several suggestions which, we believe, will improve the bill and which will result in more effective control of water pollution. For example, HR. 16207 should result in uniformity of the control of water pollution from vessels. How- ever, the bill does not appear to accomplish this inasmuch as it seems to impose Federal requirements on existing and future State or local requirements. Hence. it is suggested that all regulations be promulgated with a view toward uni- formity, and that the bill be amended so as to provide that regulations issued thereunder shall preempt all other State or local regulations relating to the con- trol of water pollution by vessels. While this proposed legislation is largely regulatory in nature it does not require the Secretary to hold hearings before promulgating his regulations. For this reason, and in order to insure that all interested parties have their views fully considered, we think it is imperative that H.R. 16207 should provide for notice and hearing procedures before the regulations called for in both sections 11 and 12 are adopted. It is true that subsection (d) provides that the Secretary shall consult with certain agency heads before the regulations are issued, and that after they are issued, but before they become effective, interested parties shall be afforded "a reasonable opportunity to comment thereon". But where regulations are so far-reaching and all-inclusive and their violation carries a criminal penalty not exceeding $2,500.00 or one year imprisonment and a civil penalty of not more than $10,000-as is the case under H.R. 16207-it is only right and just that the Secretary should be required to make findings as to the facts on which regulations are based. And on questions such as whether the find- ings of fact are based on substantial evidence and whether the regulations are reasonable in light of the findings made, we think interested parties should be afforded the right of judicial review. The issues involved are far too serious to be governed by regulations promulgated on the basis of merely affording inter- ested parties opportunity to comment between issuance and effective data and without the procedural safeguards mentioned above. As constituted, the implementation and enforcement of H.R. 16207 is almost wholely with the Department of the Interior. Here is a bill dealing entirely with ships-inland and ocean-going, and since the Coast Guard is the Federal agency which has always had the responsibility for regulating the operations of vessels. we thing the various responsibilities of regulation, implementation, and enforce- ment under H.R. 16207 should properly repose in the Coast Guard-the agency with existing expertise and experience. Thus, the bill should be amended to place the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating in place of the Department of Interior, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating in place of the Secretary of Interior. One of the weaknesses of the present bill iS the divided responsibility involved in the promulgation of the regulations and their enforcement and regulation in general. For example, on page 4, subsection (e), the Secretary of Interior has the power to certify the conformance of any device designed to control the dis- charge of sewage from vessels, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating only has the power of approval of such devices in- sofar as "safety" is concerned. The authority of the Secretary of the Interior should be confined to setting standards and criteria with respect to pollution. The certification as to safety and all other aspects should be with the agency that has the responsibility for approving virtually all vessel equipment and operations- the Coast Guard. After all, it is the Coast Guard which is involved in these pro- PAGENO="0719" 711 cedures daily and when it certifies a vessel the certificate includes all types of miscellaneous equipment on board commercial vessels. It makes no sense at all to have one governmental department attempting to regulate particular aspects of vessel operation when another governmental department now exercises regu- latory authority over nearly every aspect of ship operation. In addition, it should be made abundantly clear that any person properly using and maintaining certi- fied sewage control equipment shall be immune from liability for sewage discharges. On page 8 (subsection (k) flatly states that the provisions of section 11 "shall be enforced by the employees of the Secretary of the Interior and by personnel of the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating This enforcement by "employees" of tw-o different Cabinet-rank departments would inevitably lead to confusion and constitutes an entirely unnecessary dupli- cation which is both inefficient and costly. In conn~ction with section 12 of the bill, which fixes the same prohibitions contained in section 11, for the so-called "contiguous zone" which is an addi- tional 9 miles seaward from the outer boundary of the three-mile limit, the ques- tion arises as to the physical ability of the Department of the Interior to en- gage in surveillance and enforcement this far off shore. Is it contemplated, far example, that Interior would build, maintain, and operate a completely duplicate fleet of patrol vessels? Thus, it is suggested that the bill should stipulate that the Coast Guard not only prescribe the mechanical and structural facilities needed on board a vessel, but that they have the sole responsibility for enforcing the pertinent regulations. * Se~'tion 12 provides that it shall be unlawful to discharge from any vessel sewage, ballast and bilge water, sludge, garbage, etc., "into the waters of the con- tiguous zone . . . which may pollute or contribute to the pollution of the w-aters of the territory or the territorial sea of the United States, except in case of an emergency . . . unavoidable collision, stranding. or accident, or except under regulations prescribed by the Secretary." The question arises as to why the sec- tion 12(a) unlawful discharge of the noxious materials mentioned into the con- tiguous zone should be subject to the four exceptions of emergency, unavoidable collision, stranding, or accident, while the section 11(f) unlaw'ful discharge of the same noxiou,s materials into the navigable w-aters is not subject to these four exceptions. Thus, it is suggested that this discrepancy be corrected by amending hR. 16207 so that the four exceptions stated in section 12(a) also apply to dis- charges into the navigable waters as set out in section 11(f). In closing, I would like to comment on the serious problem of retrofit, i.e., re- piping and replumbing existing vessels to collect and/or treat waste materials. The Navy has already testified that they estimate an expenditure of approxi- mately $255 million to repipe and replumb 700 vessels, and the Coast Guard has indicated that their estimates for retrofit range from $50,000 to $3Q0~000, depending on type of vessel. In this connection, we would like to note the variety of types of commercial vessels affected such as passenger ships, tankers, bulk carriers and dry cargo ships. In addition to the substantial costs involved in the phyical alteration of these ships, the tremendous commercial loss incurred during lay-up must be taken into account. This loss would not fall on the ship- owner alone, but on shippers, freight forwarders, pier owners, railroads, truck- ers, longshoremen and seamen as well. In fact, such retrofitting would hasten the end of many aging ships when we are already faced with the specter of block obsolescence. The deterioration of the American-flag merchant marine is well known, and it would not seem to make sense for the Public Works Com- mittee to hasten its demise when other Committees of the Congress are working so hard to rescue it. Sincerely, RALPH E. CASEY. OHIO VALLEY IMPROvEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Cincinnati, Ohio, April25, 1968. Re S. 3206. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, Raijbnrn House Office Building Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: The Ohio Valley Improvement Association, founded in 1895, is a non-profit corporation of the State of Ohio. It is dedicated to the Social and economic improvement of the Ohio Valley Region, principally PAGENO="0720" 712 through sound development of water resources. In view of its commitment to water resource development, the Association desires to express its support of the objectives of S. 3206 and to offer the following comments which it is hoped will be helpful to the Committee in its consideration of this legislation: (1) Under Section 2(f) (3 of the Bill, it is provided that interest on any obligation secured in whole or in part by a contract under subsection (f) of Section 2, or by revenues from works constructed with financial assistance there- under, shall not be exempt from Federal income taxation, and that no payment shall be made by the Secretary for any portion of the principal or interest on any obligation, the interest on which is so exempt. We urge that this provision be deleted from the Bill. Its effect would be to impair the marketability of bonds issued by States and local public bodies, thus tending severely to obstruct finan- cing of waste treatment works and to hamper their construction. In this con- nection, it is significant that many States such as West Virginia have statutory limits on the rate of interest payable on State and municipal obligations, which would preclude issues under present conditions at rates high enough for market acceptance, if tax-exempt status is eliminated. We know of no reason why obligations of States and local public bodies issued to finance water pollution abatement facilities should be treated less favorably for Federal income tax purposes than any other obligations of such entities. This proposal, therefore, w-ould set a dangerous precedent for future depriva- tions of the income tax exempt status of bonds issued states and local public bodies, and would raise basic issues of Federal fiscal policy and would present grave questions as to the proper relationship between Federal Government and the States and other local governmental agencies. Such issues should be con- sidered, if at all, by the cognizant committees of Congress in the full context of the complex questions involved, not in the limited setting of Federal water pollution control policy. The deletion here recommended would also entail the deletion of Subsection (f) (3) Clause B of Section 2, apparently designed to provide a subsidy to offset loss of tax-exempt status. (2) Under Section 2(g) of the Bill, it is provided that in approving treatment w-orks for Federal grant or contract assistance, the Secretary, beginning July 1, 1968, shall require as a condition of such assistance, adequacy of the design or operating plan for treatment works and that the States by not later than July 1, 1969, develop certain plans and programs. We urge that the dates prescribed in Subsection (g) be set forward by at least one year. Action by State legislatures will in many instances be required to meet the prescribed conditions and in numerous instances legislatures meet only biennially. The dates specified in the bill could well result in slowing down projects by several years. (3) Also in Subsection (g) of Section 2 it is required that the States develop statewide plans "to improve the efficiency of all constructed treatment works". This would seem to go beyond the true intent of the sponsors of the bill, since literally construed, it would require improvements in the efficiency of works already operating at peak efficiency. We suggest that this provision be amended by adding after the words "treatment works" in line 1 of page 9 the words "not currently operating at efficiencies in conformity with modern technologies". We trust the Committee will give favorable consideration to our recommenda- tions and w-e respectifully request that this letter be incorporated in the hearing record. Sincerely, WILLIAM J. HULL. Cli airman of the Legislative Committee. TI-rE COMMONWEALTH OF MAssACHUsETTS, WATER RESOURCES Co~rMIssIoN. Boston, April 18, 1968. Re HR. 15907. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman. Committee on Public TVorks, house of Repre~en tatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FALLON: The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control has analyzed HR. 1.5907, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This bill, in our opinion, has many disturbing features which will adversely PAGENO="0721" 713 affect the timely construction of waste treatment facilities in the Commonwealth and completely disrupt the implementation scheduling already promulgated as re- quired by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965. In order to properly evaluate the ramifications of this bill, a brief review of the Massachusetts program should be made. Since the passage of the Federal Water Quality Act of 196a and the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted one of the most comprehensive water pollution control programs in the nation, featuring a $150 million State Grants Program, a new Division of Water Pol- lution Control in the Department of Natural Resources, two industrial waste treatment tax incentive laws, one million dollars a year for research and train- ing, and broad authority for enforcing the provisions of the Clean Waters Act. Water Quality Standards have been adopted and approved for the entire State, and the Division has instituted and scheduled an aggressive and comnpre- hensive waste treatment construction program tailored to time financial support authorized by the Clean Waters Restoration Act. Following cut-backs in Federal appropriations in FY 1968, a prefinancing clause w'as passed by the Massachusetts legislature to allow us to advance the Federal shar~ on eligible projects in order to preserve the integrity of the schedules set forth in our implementation program. This pending Federal legislation appears to offer several serious deficiencies that would certainly delay and conceivably cripple the efforts of the Common- wealth's water pollution abatement program. Several of these are enumerated as follows: 1. Under H.R. 15007, the Federal reimbursement provisions are discon- tinued July 1, 1968. To maintain the present Federal grant appropriations and at the same time eliminate the reimbursement provision will reduce the level of construction far below what is required in the State's implementation schedule and serve to lengthen the time period for water quality enhance- ment of our rivers and streams. 2. The larger communities will be at a disadvantage under the contract provisions because of the method of reimnbursement using non-tax exempt bonds contrasted with a smaller community that may receive grants. This constitutes a serious problem as to the equitability between large and small community financing. The appropriation levels are also not specified in the Act and therefore makes it difficult to plan for specified projects on a year- to-year basis. 3. The fact that no state may get more than 10 percent of the total amount of available funds for contracts obviously is disproportionate as the magnitude of State problems vary considerably, and there is no assurance that more serious problems will be rectified on a priority basis. The earlier method of allocations on a population and income basis with State priority schedules certainly appears to be a better approach. 4. The section providing for the local public body to establish a necessary reserve fund is not allowable under the Massachusetts General Laws. 5. The State would certainly agree an operator certification program is a necessary ingredient to an effective water quality control program. At the present time there is a bill for a mandatory Operator Certification Pro- gram in the Massachusetts I-louse of Representatives. The effective date for this however is July 1, 1971, which, in our opinion is the earliest we can promote an effective certification program which will include re-training existing operators and instituting a one-year school for inducing new per- sonnel in the operation of waste treatment plant programs. 6. Under time presently anticipated grants for FY 1969 there is some $225 million authorized for construction grants. HR 5907 proposes a research and development program for $125 million a year on a continuing basis. It cer- tainly would appear that the proportionate amounts for construction grants for waste treatment facilities compared to the amounts being proposed for research is grossly imbalanced. Our State recognizes the needs for continua- tion of the on-going research and demonstration program but not at a level that is almost 60 percent of the authorized construction levels. 7. The proposed legislation would eliminate the provision in the existing Act that one of the Federal regional water pollution control laboratories shall be located in the Northeastern area of the United States. It is our PAGENO="0722" 714 understanding that under the present Act, the site for this laboratory was selected and the final plans prepared for the laboratory to be located in the Boston area. 8. The bills do not recommend how much money will be authorized for construction grants or for contracts making it impossible for the States to plan projects in advance and, of course as earlier mentioned, destroys the in-esent implementation schedules required by the Federal `Water Quality Act of 1965. We w-ould offer the alternative of continuation of the program proposed in the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 with increased authorizations for construction grants as a far more suit- able method for attacking water pollution in a broad, equitable and efficient manner. Alteration of the financial methods of assistance to communities can only negate many of the good features of our State program and rescind many of the progressive provisions of earlier amendments to the Federal `Water Pollu- tion Control Act. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Massachusetts Division of Wrater Pollution Control wishes to go on record as opposing HR 15907. We would be most ap- preciative if this letter were to be read at the scheduled hearings and be made a part of the record of the hearing. Very truly yours, Tnol\rAs C. MCMAHON, Director. DELAWARE RIvER BAsIN CoMMIssIoN, Trenton, N.J., May 17, 1968. Mr. RICHARD J. SULLIvAN, Chief Counsel, House Committee on Public TTTorlcs, Rayburn House Office Build- ing, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SULLIVAN: .1 understand that the House Public Works Committee has under consideration a bill by Congressman Dingell (HR. 16852) to amend Section 11 of the Water Pollution Control Act. The amendment would provide that no "federal department or agency" shall issue a license or permit to authorize industrial or state or municipal activity that might result in the discharge of heated effluents into interstate waters unless the Secretary of Interior first cer- tifies to the federal agency that the discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below applicable state or federal standards. The Delaware River Basin Commission is a federal agency (75 Stat. 688) and as such would appear to be subject to the requirement of the proposed amend- ment. Unlike other federal agencies (FWPCA excepted), however, the Com- mission is directly in the business of administering water quality standards, in- cluding criteria related to heated effluents. The proposed legislation, therefore, would create an unnecessary and duplicatory certification procedure in this basin. Under Section 3.8 and Article 11 of the Delaware River Basin Compact, the Commission must review all new waste discharges to determine if they conform to the water quality standards contained in the Commission's Comprehensive Plan. These standards were adopted by the Commission on April 26, 1967, ap- proved by the Secretary of Interior on April 4, 1968, and are quite specific with regard to temperature conditions in the water that must be maintained. Any proposed industrial or municipal waste discharge that does not meet these stand- ards can be stopped by action of the Commission, which would not be affected by any license or permit granted by any other federal agency. On this point, you may be interested to know that we already have had experience with a proposed nuclear generating station that decided to install cooling towers in anticipation of the Commission's temperature requirements. In light of the fact that the Commission is administering these water quality standards on a day-to-day basis, and since these standards are federal standards by virtue of the Secretary's approval, it would seem quite unnecessary for the Commission to have to refer proposed waste discharge projects to the Secretary of Interior for duplicate certification as would be required under the provisions of the proposed bill. As a way to adapt this proposal to the Delaware River River Basin, without at the same time affecting the intent of Congressman Dingell, I would suggest that the bill be amended in either of two ways: PAGENO="0723" 715 (1) By adding at the end of the bill a new sentence to read as follows: "In any river basin where water quality standards are administered under a federal-interstate compact, the powers delegated to the Secretary by this section shall be vested in and exercised by the governing body constituted by such compact." 01' (2) As a more general amendment which will leave the enforcement of water quality standards relating to heated effluents with the agencies already empowered within the framework of the present law, the new paragraph (b) could be amended by deleting all after the word "waters" in line 9 and in- serting in lieu thereof: "where such effluent would violate applicable water quality standards approved pursuant to this Act, and applied by the agency directly charged with responsibility for their administration." I would anticipate that under the second alternative above an Executive Order would be helpful to define in further detail the requirements of inter-depart- mental coordination. Sincerely, W. BRINTON WHITALL, ~Secretary. Burlington has been selected as the location for a second 993,000-kilowatt nuclear generating unit. This will be of the pressurized water type supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a duplicate of the first unit which was an- nounced last year. They will be built side by side on a 140-acre site that straddles the boundary of Burlington Township and Burlington City on the banks of the lower Delaware River, 11 miles downstream from Trenton. Cost of the newly-proposed project is $121 million. Originally scheduled for operation in 1974, it is now scheduled to begin operating in 1973. Public Service will design, construct, operate, and maintain both units. How- eve~r, it will share ownership and electric output of the first with three other utilities. Public Service and Philadelphia Electric Company will each have a 39.43% share; Delmarva Power and Light Company, 13.09%; and Atlantic City Electric Company, 8.05%. The other three companies have been invited by Public Service to share in the second facility. Four cooling towers, two for each unit, will be built on the site, so that it will not be necessary to circulate Delaware River water for cooling purposes. Under the original plan, 1,000,000 gallons of Delaware River water per minute would have been used for each unit. The towers, a rarity in this country, are common in England and the European continent. They look like large top hats and w-ill rise 410 feet and measure 420 feet in diameter at the base. The cooling towers are being erected because the Delaware River Basin Corn- mission set up guidelines on March 2 for improvements in the river, among which were limitations on water temperatures. With cooling towers, water will stay within a closed circuit to be used and reused; no warm water will be discharged into the Delaware, and the temperature of the river will not be affected. Total cost of the towers is approximately $16 million. Our engineers continue to meet with Atomic Energy Commission representa- tives who are studying the application for the first unit. There's still no word on when a public hearing will be held in the Burlington area. However, we anticipate it will be sometime in the fall. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FAIToN, Chairman, House Committee on Pu She Works, ~am Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : The Sport Fishing Institute wishes to comment for the record on the proposed amendment to Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended-HR. 16852. The purpose of this amendment would be to add a new subsection which would prohibit any Federal department or agency from from licensing or permitting "any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, State, political subdivision of a State or any other public body or PAGENO="0724" 716 agency relating to any activity that may result in the discharge of heated effluents into interstate or navigable waters or into tributaries of such waters This subsection w-ould permit the Secretary of Interior to permit such discharges pro- viding they will not reduce the quality of such waters below applicable State or Federal w-ater quality standards. Mr. Chairman, `Thermal Pollution of Water" was the subject of our entire SF1 BTJLLETIN 191 (enclosed for the record) which deals with the very grave situation developing throughout the country where fossil and nuclear-fueled electric power generating stations are using both fresh and marine waters to cool their condensers. This results in water temperatures being elevated to as high as 143° F.! Heat can be detrimental to our aquatic resources and if we consider the fol- lowing definition of water pollution, then it too, is a pollutant: "Water pollution is the specific impairment of water quality by agricultural, domestic, or indus- trial w-astes (including thermal and atomic wastes), to a degree that has an adverse effect upon any beneficial use of water, yet that does not necessarily create an actual hazard to the public health." Under this definition, if there is no impairment of desired use by the presence or addition of any factor, there is no pollution. This is an important concept to adopt because (1) it is easily understood, (2) it is reasonable, and (3) is is potentially enforceable. We would like to list some ten effects of heated water on marine aquatic life, as enumerated by Dr. Donald P. deSylva of the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida: (1) Considering temperature alone, for every 18-degree (F.) increase in temperature, the rate of a chemical reaction in an organism or in an environ- ment is doubled, and the rate of each of the many reactions within a bio- chemical system of an organism is affected. (2) Oxygen, considered essential to life, is present in smaller concentra- tions at higher temperatures, and high temperatures increase salinity, which also somewhat decreases the dissolved oxygen concentration. (3) High temperature speeds the flocculation of finely suspended particles in seaw-ater, which then remove oxygen from water. More important, these particles cause turbidity which decreases the clarity of the water, thus pre- venting sunlight from penetrating adequately. Plant growth and the result- ing dissolved oxygen from plant respiration is reduced. In this connection there is also good evidence that the amount of light penetration affects the behavior of fishes. (4) High temperatures also increase, to a point, the metabolic rate of fishes and invertebrates at various times of their life cycle, depending on the species and area, after which point their rate of survival drops rapidly. Increasing temperatures affect the rate of development of the eggs and larval stages but extremes induce mortality in eggs, larvae, and adults. Also, a temperature increase causes a salinity increase, thus reducing the survival rate of eggs and larvae. This temperature increase also reduces the concen- tration of dissolved oxygen, thus increasing mortality in eggs and larvae. (5) Increasing temperatures change the mode of behavior in larvae and adults. Larger individuals tend to move out of an affected area, but larvae and juveniles cannot often move sufficiently fast to avoid a sudden tempera- ture increase. The metabolic rate is increased with a temperature increase, and more oxygen is used; w-here this needed oxygen is scarce, organisms I)erish. Ordinarily, organisms are able to escape predatory forms, but in- creased temperatures and reduced oxygen or both may slow the organisms' metabolism and ability to detect and escape predators. Such changes in be- havior are usually caused by varying amounts of stress placed on the organisms due to changes in metabolism brought on by external factors such as temperature increase. The ability of fishes to maintain their salt balance, for example, is determined by w-ater temperature, and the increased stress placed on fishes by increased temperature and concomitant low oxygen makes them more susceptible to changes in their physical, chemical and biological environment. (6) Increased water temperature may alter the structure, behavior, and migration of fish schools. Even slightly increased temperatures, as well as the addition of I)Ollutants, can cause fish schools to avoid a contaminated area. This would also affect their availability to sport and commercial fishermen. PAGENO="0725" 717 (7) The rate of feeding in marine organisms generally increases gradually, then drops off abruptly as oxygen decreases. This is in part due to the critical physiological stress placed on the organisms themselves and partly because the food upon which they are feeding-plankton, bottom invertebrates, fishes-may decrease in abundance, may migrate completely to a new region, or be killed off outright. Reproductive cycles may be changed significantly by the addition of heated effluents. Spawning may not occur at all because temperatures are too high, especially for species oridinarily spawning in winter, while in some cases spawning may occur too early, when conditions are less favorable in terms of food, and other environmental conditions, for the young to survive. The rate of settling of invertebrate larvae is dependent upon temperature, and this may be favorable or not. Finally, the number of eggs produced by a spe- cies is temperature-dependent, with some species producing more eggs at lower temperatures and other species laying more eggs at higher tempera- - tures. (9) Pollutants usually w-ork not singly but in a combination of several factors. A given amount of waste, such as domestic sew-age, refinery w'aste~, oils, tars, insecticides, detergents, synthetic fibers, and fertilizers, more effec- tively deplete water of oxygen and increase in their chronic toxicity at higher water temperatures and high salinities. The effect of these is synergistic- two toxic compounds are more powerful acting together than is each other working separately. (10) Finally, pollution does not necessarily have to cause an actual kill of any of the organisms within a food web to make an area unproductive. Destruction of the habitat, an increasing factor in the depletion of Florida's natural resources, is sufficient to eradicate any number of species without adding a single chemical pollutant. For example, temperatures too high for turtle grass to survive, or for coral or sponges to grow, or for mangroves to flourish, could in itself be sufficient to destroy a habitat of Biscayne Bay. And if one adds any of the pollutants now or potentially being added to Bis- cayne Bay, the toxic effects of high temperatures are increased considerably. In freshwater we know that heavy discharges of organic wastes can fertilize water to such an extent, through excesses of nitrogen and phosphorus, that plant growth is greatly augmented. Under high water temperature conditions algae, in particular, bloom prodigiously. Two things may occur under such circumstances: (1) too much dissolved oxygen is liberated by such plants into the water during full sunlight and fish are killed by a condition of supersaturation, exhibiting "pop-eyes" and skin bubbles, or (2) the reverse photosynthetic process takes place under darkness (at night, or on cloudy or foggy days) and the dissolved oxygen is removed from the water and carbon dioxide is given off by the plants- the fish die either from lack of sufficient oxygen or an over-abundance of carbon dioxide. In addition, the dissolved oxygen retaining capability of the water is lessened at higher temperatures, as was previously noted for marine waters. The National Technical Advisory Committee to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on Water Quality Criteria for Fish, and other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife, early had established specific limitations on w-ater tempera- tures in their Interim Report. We feel that there is great need to heed the advice given by these expert aquatic scientists comprising the NTAC, to adopt these as the official guide of the FWPCA, playing an important role in the Internal Review Board's approval or disapproval of State Standards now before them. We do not feel that thermal pollution is something we must live with, any more than we feel that some of our waterways must be designated as "sewers." We are convinced that current day technology is adequate to combat the problem effectively. Advances in cooling towers, closed cooling circuits, thermal cooling ponds, and the various combinations of these can return discharge water to the temperature of the intake waters. We would feel that with adequate temperature safety margins built into our water quality standards on interstate and navi- gable waters that a degree of protection is available here if proper enforcement is~ enacted. We have been somewhat taken aback by the Atomic Energy Commission's atti- tude concerning thermal pollution inasmuch as they denied any statutory re- course in matters other than control over radiological wastes. The growth of nuclear-fueled steam-electric-power plants is well-evidenced and noted in our SF1 Bulletin No. 191 (see page 2) as attached to this testimony. Too, it has been PAGENO="0726" 718 estimated that there are and will be some 85 nuclear plants in operation by the year 2000 producing 16 million kilowatts. The vast amounts of water necessary to cool these less efficient (17 percent less than fossil-fueled plants) is stagger- ing to the imagination. Much of the electric power industry now is considering our coastal areas as those being capable of providing the tremendous volumes of water needed in this cooling process. We are already cognizant of many examples developing across the width and breadth of this nation-Biscayne Bay, Florida, the southern end of the Great Lakes, the Columbia River System, etc. There are very real threats to the anadromous fish populations of the Pacific Northwest wherein actual heat barriers preclude upstream migrations of salmonds during spawning runs. Mr. Chairman, if we are to promote and protect the well-being of our nation's aquatic resources we must take early cognizance of the dangers involved in this new form of pollution. An amendment, such as is proposed in H.R. 16852, would strengthen the federal position in specifically controlling this very debilitating and deadly form of po'lution. The Sport Fishing Institute, therefore, goes strongly on record favoring adoption of this amendment to the basic Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We would appreciate this letter being included in any record of hearings held on this proposed legislation. Thank you. Sincerely, PHILIP A. DOUGLAS, Executive Secretary.