It is your belief that you will find a comparably effective product that is biologically degradable in a satisfactory length of time, and that it will be competitive?

Mr. PLEASANTS. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. And if that does occur, the rest of the products will automatically be pulled off the market?

Mr. PLEASANTS. Well-I am sorry. Are you referring only to Procter & Gamble's family of brands, or are you referring to the entire industry?

Senator NELSON. I am accepting your word as a spokesman for Procter & Gamble that you expect to find such a product and you expect to withdraw from the market all of the so-called hard detergents yourself.

Mr. PLEASANTS. Well, yes.

Actually, Senator Nelson, what will happen within our companywe have our family of brands. I will not recite the names, I do not want to make a plug. The same brands in the same packages will remain on sale in the stores. But their internals will have been altered.

In a 30-pound finished case of a heavy detergent, there may be from 2 to 6 pounds alkyl benzene. The old alkyl benzene will simply be withheld. The new degradable type will be substituted for it. Any minor adjustments of the former components that have to be made to accommodate this will be made.

But, on the surface, the homemaker will not know that anything has happened. She will have the same package, the same name on the product. She will take it home with her, except when this gets down the drain and gets to the sewage treatment plant, it will fade away more than 90 percent, rather than the current 50 or 60 percent level.

Senator NELSON. Suppose you accomplish all you hope you will and still some manufacturer finds it economically profitable to stay on the market with the so-called hard detergent in competition with you? Mr. PLEASANTS. Senator Nelson, I must yield.

Mr. MOSER. May I speak to that?

The reason I would like to speak on that, one of my duties includes the arrangement for the purchase of everything we buy, except advertising agent services. But I have responsibility for all the materials the company buys, and I have had for a considerable number of years.

Senator BAYH. This is for Lever Brothers?

Mr. MOSER. That is right.

I have been very much involved in the search for softer detergents, working hand in glove with our research people, and I know quite a bit about what is going on in our suppliers' plants.

We make that a business policy to understand what is being done by our suppliers in their plants. It is open and above board. We understand when they have trouble whether they are real or not. I do believe that we can find full support for this: That no manufacturer who converts to a highly degradable ABS will be able to reconvert, except at great expense, to make hard ABS.

The five people who are manufacturing large commercial quantities of ABS today have all told our purchasing agent and me that they will no longer be making hard ABS for detergents, once they get converted.

I think that may help in this worry about somebody using hard ABS instead of the soft material.

Senator NELSON. It helps, but it does not really settle the question. There still may be somebody, a new manufacturer, importer, or some manufacturer who wishes to enter the field with hard detergents because it is profitable.

Mr. MOSER. It is profitable, did you say?

Senator NELSON. Yes; probably they can compete and make a profit on it.

Mr. MOSER. The economics of the situation have been worked into a situation where it is no longer likely that that will exist. I could submit prices here, but I have competitors here, and I would rather not. But I can say this: That the difference in the 30-pound case that Dr. Pleasants mentioned between a hard detergent and a soft detergent is going to be less than a nickel, and for 24 packages, a nickel does not allow you to reduce the price or have any particular advantage.

There was a time when the projected price for the new soft detergents was very high. With 12 companies now wishing to enter the field, 5 already in, forces of competitive business have taken_place, and we are not going to pay a very fancy premium for soft ABS.

Senator NELSON. There will be some premium, you thought in the nature of 5 cents in a 30-pound package?

Mr. MOSER. Five cents, say, on $8, and, to us, we get 5-cent fluctuations day in and day out and pay no attention.

Senator NELSON. If your estimate of the cost differential were not accurate and it did turn out that there was an attractive cost differential to the housewife in the marketplace, would you then support legislation to prohibit hard detergents that do not meet a certain standard from being put on the market?

Mr. MOSER. I am not estimating, Senator Nelson. I have made contracts for this. I know what the prices are. I mean I have actually contracted for this new material to be delivered beginning next August, a year from now. I know what we are going to pay for it.

Now, there is one other thing: That is the fear that importation might set in. I think that, as far as importation goes, we will have to watch that quite carefully. The price of tetrapropylene ABS in Germany today is lower than it is in this country. The only way you can rationalize that-the cost is the same to make it-is when you have a barrel of crude oil and you are going to make 40 products, how do you assign your cost to any 1 product?

Apparently, there is not much left for ABS. The cost is about 6 cents a pound in West Germany. Add to that the 1.5-percent tariff. That is a cent and a half. Add the 3.5 cents on top of that, add your ocean freight, and it is more expensive than new material we are going to have produced in this country and delivered at our factories.

Senator NELSON. Then the factors are more optimistic than I had previously understood, since you have already made contracts, you ire positive that the cost differential will be no more than a nickel, and you are expecting all your producers to go out of the hard deterrent business by what date?

Mr. MOSER. As soon as they can change over. Mind you, the first startup of a new plant is August 1964. It is obviously going to take several months to make a complete changeover in all the plants, be

1

cause they are not all going to be able to change as fast as others, and they will have some difficulty in their processes.

There are a number of processes being used in this, you know. Senator NELSON. And you are satisfied, at least, from the laboratory tests so far, that the esthetically objectionable foaming aspect is eliminated?

Mr. MOSER. From the laboratory, yes. We have not had enough, of course, to run it through major systems in large quantities. But I have every confidence in that.

Senator NELSON. I had just one more question.

I noticed in your statement, Mr. Pattison-your statement may very well have been drafted before Mr. Celebrezze appeared before the committee I noticed you stated that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare agreed with the position of the industry that, if industry voluntarily worked out its problems by December of 1965. it would be better not to pass legislation.

In his testimony-and the testimony will express it better than I can-the Secretary did agree that the time difference between the authors of the bill and his position was only 6 months. In other words, if it could not be done by the date stated by the companies. December 31, 1965, then he thought legislation would be necessary. I think I am reporting accurately on what he said.

Mr. PATTISON. I read his testimony, and I realized that this difference in date was rationalized and his modification

Senator NELSON. In his testimony he said what you said, and then, in elaborating on it in his direct examination here, am I not cor

rect

Mr. PATTISON. I do not believe that, in modifying his statement as to date, he ever completely switched away from the idea that if and when voluntary agreements can be reached, legislation is not as good as having it done voluntarily.

It was my concept of his testimony-and, of course, I am only quoting my own interpretation of what he said-while there was a meeting of the minds as to the dates, there was not necessarily a meeting of the minds as to the necessity for regulatory legislation.

Senator NELSON. I think he said two things, and, again, the record will speak for itself.

I think he said that if we could not accomplish this by the date asserted by the industry, that tougher legislation would be necessary, and I think, too, he said if it could not be done at all, legislation would then be necessary to clean up our streams.

Mr. PATTISON. I think that is quite possible, because if it could not be done at all, that would be a circumstance that we are not really dealing with here, I guess.

Senator NELSON. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask one question to get your position on the record here.

You object to the legislation principally, as I understand it, because the development of standards and regulations and so on would be a time-consuming process that would delay, or might delay, implementation of our common objective.

Well, now, if it were possible to conceive of legislation-and I do not have any developed along this line-which would simply set a target date without involving the implementation by the setting up of standards and machinery, simply set a target date as a stimulus to the industry, do you have any objection to that?

I can anticipate one objection, and that is, having set the target date without developing the standard. I can anticipate that objection.

But if it were possible to meet that one, simply set a target date which gave you ample time, months of margin on what you say you need, what would be your reaction?

Mr. PATTISON. Well, the particular bill that was brought up, of course, came up before our board of directors and they took the position which was the position that I reported to you. I do not think I am really in a position to define a position on a bill that is sort of theoretical and involves millions of dollars in and out of the pockets of leading manufacturers.

I think, from a practical standpoint, if you have a target date that has no regulatory or disciplinary factor in it, it would be really more or less just a study of the situation. As soon as you try to put a regulatory factor into a bill, then an essential part of putting a regulatory factor in is to have some definition of what is adequate reliability, and I do not have that answer today.

Senator MUSKIE. If it were possible to solve that problem, how would you react to it?

Mr. MOSER. In dealing with waste disposal, we are dealing with an extremely complex and ever-changing type of material. As I mentioned in my prepared testimony, in dealing with ABS, there are literally hundreds of configurations of this molecule. We have a real tough one here.

Our industry, with the help of other testing associations, has been trying our darnedest to get a method that can be done in a reasonable way without setting up a sewage system, which may not reflect the next city's, and we have not come up with a solution yet.

Senator MUSKIE. Suppose that we were to enact one of these bills, and say the bill would become effective on July 1, 1966. What if the industry has not found a solution to it at that time?

Mr. MOSER. We have to find a solution.

Now, what we are talking about is strictly how are we going to arrive there best, is it not? And we use our own tools. Your tool is the proper approach for a Senator, the legislation approach. There are many things that cannot be handled any other way.

Senator MUSKIE. I raise the question for this reason. I do not have any final judgment on this testimony, because this is one aspect of the pollution problem that I have not had a chance to study a great deal. But I am trying to make sure the record is as complete as it can be on this situation.

There may be some in Congress who-notwithstanding all the evidence of good faith on the part of the industry that we have had, giving them all the margin they ought to have and still more-would like to make sure that when July 1, 1966, rolls around, we are well on our way to a solution; and if we are not, we would then be in a position to act.

This will be a question raised by Congress.

Mr. MOSER. This is a question of procedure, and we are more competent at proceeding with our own problem. I think we have more than hopes; we have commitments; we have pilot work well under hand; we have seen the materials.

Now, the question, in my opinion, is: Do you have legislation now that names a date some time in the future? Or do you take our date and say, "Well, look, we still see foam on such and such a river: let us clamp down on these fellows."

It is a question of how you do it. If we do not do what we set out to do, we have to expect to have somebody prod us and push us. It is perfectly normal. The question is: Do you want to push us now? If so, what can we do to speed up what we are doing?

I think what I have read to you is a good, logical, but not too conservative, estimate of the steps we must go through, the time it will take. The fact that we have no reluctance in doing this, I think, is evident. We have applied the proper number of research people and facilities. What more we can do, I do not know.

Now, if the Senate feels that, despite this, we must have some legislation, we will have to take the legislation. But we do not know what we can do, and, if you could help us by legislation, we would be all for it.

Mr. PLEASANTS. Mr. Chairman, may I speak for my company, too, please? This is a very fine question and a very difficult question. It is almost philosophical, and I think it is on a question precisely like this that we separate in the schools of thought.

There may be a school of thought that says the less statutory gov ernment we have, the less problem we have. There may be other schools that think that things are simply tidier if they are well covered by legislation.

I have no license to exert any moral pressures on any other man as to which of those schools he belongs to. I must ask myself: Do I have. by instinct, by background, some pride in voluntary accomplishment? And just assume we will operate with the least possible government. I do not know why I feel that way; I just do.

There is one other problem. I regard compulsion as very strong medicine. It can take several forms, can be an order from a superior to a subordinate; it can be a new policy in a company; or it can be legislation. It is strong medicine. Using a medical analogy, if the patient is making good progress toward recovery, is the more or less strong medicine of compulsion or potential compulsion well advised? I know this. If, God forbid, I were responsible for all of the activity, I, personally, that is going on here, all the production of these detergents, all the production of the new alkyl benzenes of these companies if I were personally responsible, if this project were making the progress it is today, on the course and with the momentum that it seems to be, I, as an individual with the experience I have, would be very wary of employing what I regard as a possibly disruptive and offensive method of compulsion.

That is the viewpoint I have. It may not be an argument that stands up, but it is my view.

Senator MUSKIE. You have responded, and that is all I wanted. Senator Miller?