Perhaps one of the most spectacular examples of cooperation by the Congress has been the provision of $22.5 million for an interceptor sewer for the Dulles International Airport because just at the time of the completion of that Potomac River case in the metropolitan area, when we thought we had a plan get the pollution cleaned up, it was announced that a Federal airport would be put at Dulles and with all this waste going in up there, we could see all our work for many years dissipating again. We have a pollution problem on the Potomac. But when this was presented to Congress, they did appropriate the funds and the sewer will come down from Dulles connecting with the main interceptor at Rock Creek and that all will be treated down below the District at Blue Plains.

So we hopefully have this situation under manageable proportions. Senator NELSON. There is something in my mind about the oil pollution in Lake Pepin on the Mississippi. In order for you to move in in a case that is not in interstate commerce, it requires the invitation of the Governor. Now, does the pollution have to be present in that Governor's State?

Mr. STEIN. No.

Senator NELSON. In other words, if

Mr. STEIN. Either one.

Senator NELSON. If there is an anticipation that some pollution originating in another State is going to come into interstate commerce, may the Governor of that State that will subsequently be affected request your aid and do you then have the power to act.

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, not only we-we must act on that request. I might point out that oil pollution in the Mississippi in Lake Pepin was just symptomatic of the problem. There is a pollution problem in the upper Mississippi that has to be taken care of and if it isn't, you can expect this and other evidences of such pollution from time to time. That was just a dramatic and critical situation. But it just has to be corrected or you have to live with it.

Senator NELSON. Thank you.

Senator MILLER. Mr. Chairman

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, Senator Miller?

Senator MILLER. I would like to ask you one more question relating to your policy on enforcement. To illustrate the problem, let us take State A that is upstream, State B right downstream next to it.

State A has a packing plant which is polluting the water and endangering the situation as far as State B people are concerned. State B also has a packing plant which is endangering its own people but it is not endangering the people of State A.

Would it be your policy to require State A to take care of their problem if State B was not taking care of its problem at the same time?

Mr. STEIN. No, sir. That is a key question and I am happy to have an opportunity to talk about that. That is putting your finger on one of our most vexing problems, Senator.

In your State we haven't had that problem because of the location of the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers.

I would just like to point this out for contrast. Where they form the side border of a State, you get each State polluting each other, and it is relatively simple from a jurisdictional point and an equitable

position to ask both sides to clean up within a reasonable time. However, in the case which you postulate where you get a river running across a State line, it is very, very difficult from an equitable point of view to ask the upstream State to clean up just to send clean water down to a State line where it will again be grossly polluted.

We have never done that and I hope we never will.

Now, what we have to do in a case like that is try to set up a schedule for the upstream State where we clearly have jurisdiction and depend upon the pressure, the moral suasion of the conference technique to get the downstream State to undertake a voluntary program also to clean up and get their river clean.

We have had this problem in several States. As you can appreciate, it is a rather delicate one to solve; the way you generally put it is that we are asking the polluter in State A to clean up by X date, but only if State B, the downstream State, has a commensurate program. If this is done, then we can have a clean stream.

But

So far we have had a fair amount of success. Of course, this takes a little more time for us to get a corrective action in such cases. we do not have jurisdiction in the lower State.

Senator MILLER. Thank you.

Now let me throw one other State into this. State C down at the bottom. State C is the one that is ultimately being affected. What is your timetable as far as States A and B cleaning up their pollution problem is concerned? Would you require State A to do it before State B or would you require it to be done about the same time?

Mr. STEIN. About the same time, in a case like that, in order to be equitable. I think again you have placed your finger on the essence of pollution control. People in a particular river basin or river valley do not want to be told to move some time ahead of their neighbor, or certainly industry doesn't want to do it ahead of its competitors. I think the key to success is working out an equitable time schedule so all these people can move in accordance with that schedule. And I think this has been what we have tried to do.

Senator MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stein.
Senator NELSON. May I ask one more question?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Senator NELSON. I have one that is a continuation of something I said before. This is respecting the Great Lakes.

With the opening of the seaway there is, of course, heavier traffic and it is anticipated that there will be much heavier traffic. Has your agency considered the problem of the pollution of these lakes by the ships coming in?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, we have, Senator. This is one of our most vexing problems. The question of pollution from ships is one I think that has plagued us now and plagued mankind from the very beginning, and we just don't have a very easy solution.

Just to put the question bluntly, when a ship is out in the lakes and the men are out on the deck, they do what comes naturally and dispose of waste overboard. I think they have possibly done this from the beginning of time. It is a very hard thing to regulate. In opening the Great Lakes to international traffic we have many ships of foreign registry, many ships with foreign crews, with different habits than we have, and many old ships. Many of these ships have been built many,

20-495-63- -5

many years ago, and if you have ever tried to be in the carrier or vessel control business and try to put sanitation changes on the ship and recognize the scarcity of a quarter of an inch of free space to move a pipe, you would recognize how difficult it is to require alterations. We are constantly looking for better methods for handling of waste discharges in the Great Lakes. I know we have had increasing complaints since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Canadians, I understand, are giving many of the ships a refuse can when they come in to pass certain locks and when they go out they take the cans away in the hope that these cans will be substantially filled. I think one of the other problems, of course, is the problem you have when these ships dock at your ports.

Senator NELSEN. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Stein, it is now 12:15. Could you be back at 2:15?

Mr. STEIN. Certainly.

Senator MUSKIE. I have a few questions I would like to ask relative to the organization of your activity within the Department. I thought rather than launch into that new subject now, it might be better to break at this point and come back at 2:15.

Mr. STEIN. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Without objection, that is what we will do. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:15 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will be in order.

We will resume where we left off. A vote is in process on the floor of the Senate, so other members of the committee will be delayed. Your testimony this morning was very helpful, Mr. Stein. I want to ask you at this point whether or not you have completed what you wanted to testify in your prepared testimony.

TESTIMONY OF MURRAY STEIN—Resumed

Mr. STEIN. Yes, sir, I have.

(The prepared statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MURRAY STEIN, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVice, DepartmeNT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

Federal enforcement action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters is authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Further, under certain specified conditions, the act prescribes that such enforcement action must be taken. The nature of the Federal authority, how and when it is applied are set out in the provisions of section 8 of the act.

While the 1948 act provided enforcement provisions more practical enforcement authority and measures were provided in the 1956 act. Their use was limited, however, to the abatement of situations involving pollution of interstate waters which endangered the health or welfare of persons in a State other than the one in which the discharges causing the pollution originated. The 1961 amendments extended jurisdiction for Federal enforcement action and in these cases made the appropriate enforcement measures applicable to the abatement

of pollution of all interstate or navigable waters, including coastal waters, which affected the health or welfare of persons.

Federal enforcement action is initiated whenever one of three specified conditions exist:

First, whenever a request is received from a Governor, or the State water pollution control agency, or, with gubernatorial concurrence, a municipality, for Federal enforcement action on an interstate pollution situation must be instituted. Second, whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies there is reason to believe that interstate pollution endangering the health or welfare of persons in another State is occurring. Enforcement action without State request is mandatory.

Third, a Governor may request enforcement action to abate intrastate pollution which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only within his State. If the Secretary finds the effects of the pollution on legitimate water uses are not of sufficient significance to warrant the exercise of Federal authority, he need not exercise enforcement authority.

The procedures under which enforcement action is conducted are detailed in the act. There are three procedural stages, each step following the previous one in orderly sequence when it fails to obtain the action required to resolve the problem:

First, a conference. The State and Federal parties meet together to evaluate the pollution situation, determine what delays are being encountered, and agree as to what remedial steps are required to be taken. One or, if necessary, a number of sessions of the conference may be held. When agreement upon the necessary remedial actions is reached, the States are given a reasonable time and opportunity and are encouraged to obtain them under their authority.

If. after the conference, the remedial action is not forthcoming, a public hearing is called. A hearing board of five or more members is appointed, including representatives of the States involved, the Department of Commerce, and others. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare employees, if named to the Board, may not constitute a majority. Sworn testimony is received by the Board, which makes findings and recommendations upon the evidence that is presented to it. The Secretary sends the Board's findings and recommendations to the specific polluters, together with his notice specifying a reasonable time for abating the pollution.

If the Board's recommendations and the Secretary's notice do not obtain compliance, court action is instituted. The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States in interstate pollution cases. In an intrastate situation, he may do so with the written consent of the Governor of that State.

The first Federal enforcement action was a public hearing held under the previous 1948 Water Pollution Control Act. Nineteen additional actions have been taken pursuant to the 1956 act and the 1961 amendments for a total of 20 actions to date. Four, including the original case, have gone to the hearing stage. Only one has gone to the point of court action. The conference stage has sufficed for the others up to this time.

Eighteen of the cases have involved interstate pollution and two have been intrastate. Ten of the twenty actions were instituted on Federal initiative on interstate situations, the remaining 10, including the 2 intrastate actions, were brought at State request.

Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia have been parties to the 20 enforcement actions. Some 4.000 miles of stream, not including such large bodies of water as Puget Sound, Lake Erie, and Raritan Bay, have been covered. Remedial collection and waste treatment facilities at an estimated cost of $500 million are in various stages of planning, construction, and operation. Such large metropolitan centers as New York City, Detroit, St. Louis, and the Kansas Citys are among the 300 municipalities included in the proceedings and an equal number of industries, including among them. Standard Oil, Shell Oil, General Motors, Swift, Armour, Crown-Zellerbach, Olin Mathieson Chemical and the Vanadium Corp. of America have figured in the actions. When schedules of required remedial construction are established for several other large areas on which data are currently being assembled, the cost figure of $500 million is expected to be substantially raised.

Federal enforcement activity effectively stimulates remedial action in a kind of chain reaction. As the larger upstream sources of pollution comply in installing treatment measures, their downstream neighbors generally follow suit.

The States themselves have found that the encouragement and assistance provided through Federal enforcement action has enabled them to obtain compliance under their own laws and authority.

Actions initiated under Federal authority on the basis of reports, studies, and

surveys

1. Corney Drainage System, 1954 (Arkansas, Louisiana).

2. Big Blue River, 1957 (Nebraska, Kansas).

3. Missouri River, St. Joseph, Mo., area, 1957 (Missouri, Kansas).

4. Missouri River, Omaha, Nebr., area, 1957 (Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa).

5. Potomac River, Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, 1957 (District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia).

6. Missouri River, Kansas Cities metropolitan area, 1957 (Kansas, Missouri). 7. Lower Columbia River, 1958 (Washington, Oregon).

8. Raritan Bay, 1961 (New York, New Jersey).

9. Mississippi River, Clinton, Iowa, area, 1962 (Illinois, Iowa).

10. Androscoggin River, 1962 (New Hampshire, Maine).

1. Corney Drainage System (Arkansas-Louisiana).—Corney Creek is an interstate stream in the Ouachita River Basin. It rises in southern Arkansas, flows southeasterly into Louisiana, through Corney Lake, into Corney Bayou, and then into Bayou D'Arbonne which flows into the Ouachita River.

On June 9, 1954, the Surgeon General issued findings that oil well discharges originating in Arkansas were endangering the welfare of persons in Louisiana through the pollution of the Corney drainage system, an interstate water as defined by the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act. These oil well discharges in Arkansas caused the waters of the Corney drainage system in Louisiana to have abnormal salinity, acidity, and biological productivity which substantially impaired the ability of these waters to support adequate aquatic life. The use of the waters of the Corney drainage system in Louisiana for fishing was substantially impaired. These oil well discharges in Arkansas caused periodice fish kills. The discharges also increased the chloride content of the waters so as to impair such water for potential use in industrial processes.

A public hearing was held on the matter of the pollution of the interstate waters of the Corney drainage system on January 16 and 17, 1957 at Homer, La. At the time of the hearing, operators of 18 oil leases were discharging wastes into the Corney drainage system.

As of 1960 the unsatisfactory brine pits at these 18 leases had been replaced by the more satisfactory method of brine injection systems. The Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission and the U.S. Public Health Service are keeping surveillance on the area.

2. Big Blue River (Nebr., Kans.).—The Big Blue River is one of the major tributaries of the Kansas River. It rises in southeastern Nebraska and flows generally southward to form a junction with the Kansas River below Manhattan, Kans.

A conference was held on May 3, 1957, at Beatrice, Nebr. Discharges of untreated and inadequately treated sewage by municipalities in Nebraska endangered the health and welfare of persons in Kansas by causing interferences with legitimate uses of the Big Blue River for municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation, stock watering, fishing, and potential recreational use. All sources of pollution named at the conference have completed construction of remedial treatment facilities. A study has been proposed to determine the effectiveness of the treatment now provided for the discharges entering the Big Blue River.

3. Missouri River, St. Joseph, Mo., area (Missouri, Kansas).—The reach of the Missouri River concerned in this action extends from Rockport, Mo., to Lansing. Kans., and forms the State boundary between Missouri and Kansas. A conference was held at St. Joseph, Mo., on June 11, 1957, on the pollution situation caused by the discharges of untreated sewage and industrial wastes by St. Joseph, Mo., and its associated stockyard area. Involved in the conference were 8 municipalities, 4 institutions, and 18 industries. The conferees concluded that the effects of the pollution caused deterioration of water quality for public water supply; constituted a health hazard to commercial and recreational users; interfered with legitimate water uses for stock watering, commercial fishing, aquatic and wildlife habitat, and industrial uses. A schedule of necessary remedial measures was established by the conferees.