Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, gentlemen. May I ask a question on standards? I am interested in this because in fact the Department of the Interior has issued guidelines for water quality standards of the States. Do you agree with the proposition that quality standards that apply to any interstate streams in a State ought to apply also to intrastate streams in the State? You raised the problem of time and the workload necessity. Now in principle would you agree to that proposition? Mr. VONFRANK. The context of the question as I gather it is still in the basic area that reaches of streams have standards defined appropriate to the reaches. With that guarded qualification, I would point out that there are numerous standards-setting developments around the country which our industry is participating in, not questioning whether standards should not be determined, but as to what the standards should be. I mean, based on performance, the position of the chemical industry is quite clear. In many States on intrastate streams, we are participating in standards hearings and propose to do so at an accelerated rate in the future. I have to make a derived conclusion from those facts because the association has not blessed me with an official position. I would say, based on the performance of our industry, the answer to your question is "Yes." Senator MUSKIE. I would think that that would be a sound position to take. In the first place, the question is before us in S. 2987 which would include navigable waters, as you indicated in your testimony in the standard-setting provisions of the law. It was our hope as a committee last year that the Water Quality Act, although applicable only to interstate streams, would stimulate similar action on intrastate streams. The guidelines issued by the Department of the Interior, for example, contain some suggestions that I think ought to be applied across the board. For example, there is this language in the guidelines: "In no case will standards providing for less than existing water quality be acceptable." It seems to me that is a minimal goal toward which we ought to strive across the country. Yet I don't know that this has been accepted as a minimal goal across the country in the States. I think the expertise of setting standards on interstate streams ought to bring this question to the forefront, that we ought to be in our State legislatures deciding whether or not this is acceptable minimal goal, not only for interstate streams but intrastate streams. Here is another one "No standards of water quality will be approved which provide for the use of any stream or portion thereof for the sole or principal purpose of transporting wastes." This certainly is a minimal standard which we ought to apply. Yet I don't know that we have accepted it across the country in every State. There are others of this kind throughout these guidelines, which I have not had a chance to study exhaustively, which are designed to begin to attach some goals. We appreciate on a given stream that before you get down to specifics you have to do a lot of analysis work and complex work and research work before you come up with specific performance criteria which will result in achievement of such broad standards as goals. Nevertheless, the committee hoped that the Water Quality Act would result in a broad policymaking effort across the country with the States which would achieve comparable standards on interstate and intrastate streams. If that is the position of the manufacturing chemists, why it would be most reassuring to this committee. So I am glad that we have your qualified announcement if you are prepared to expand on it later, we will be delighted to have that too. Mr. VON FRANK. I think that might be a worthwhile thing to do. Senator MUSKIE. The States have built until July 1, 1967. I think it would be very helpful if we could get some indication from industry across the board as to whether or not they are going to support in the States on intrastate streams, the same policy which increasingly they are supporting on interstate streams. Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions but I do want to compliment Mr. von Frank and Mr. Connor and the industry for its constructive presentation here today. I am sure it will be of great help to the committee. Mr. VON FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Boggs. (Subsequentliy, Mr. M. F. Crass of Manufacturing Chemists submitted the following communication pertaining to its policy on intrastate streams :) MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Honorable EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is pursuant to your invitation to our witness at your hearings on May 12 for clarification of the Association's attitude toward the setting of water quality standards on intrastate waters. Of direct pertinence are some facts of chemical industry practice under the leadership of the Association's Water Resources Committee. First, for more than five years this Committee has held most of its regular meetings in various states for the express purpose of improving acquaintance and emphasizing cooperation with the state water pollution control agencies. Second, in ten workshops on water pollution put on by the Association within the last five years, the programs have been planned specifically to include state control agency personnel. Third, our Committee members are individually assigned to one or more states each, the objective being to maintain close liaison. In these and other relationships with control agencies respecting water quality standards, no distinction has been made between intrastate and interstate waters in our desire to be helpful. Accordingly, as states advance with their determination of standards for intrastate waters, please be assured that it will be the policy of this Association to urge strong support by the chemical manufacturing industry, as we are currently urging in regard to the states' development of standards for interstate waters under the Water Quality Act. Sincerely yours, Mr. MUSKIE. Senator Murphy? Senator MURPHY. I have no questions. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. Mr. VON FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. M. F. CRASS, Jr. Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Mr. P. N. Gammelgard, director of American Petroleum Institute's Committee on Air and Water Conservation. STATEMENT OF P. N. GAMMELGARD, DIRECTOR OF AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE'S COMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER CONSERVATION Mr. GAMMELGARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is P. N. Gammelgard. I am director of the American Petroleum Institute's Committee for Air and Water Conservation. I appear today on behalf of the institute, as well as the Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners Association, Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association, and Western Oil & Gas Association, to express our views on two bills having to do with water conservation: S. 2947 and S. 2987. Taking up S. 2947 first, it is my pleasure to state that we give our wholehearted cooperation to the principles and the purposes outlined in this legislation. In saying this, we take no position on the amount to be appropriated under the measure's provisions. That, we feel, should be left entirely to the wisdom of the Congress. We do wish, however, to single out for special commendation the support this measure gives to research and demonstration projects. The petroleum industry has long been extremely conscious of the need for intensive research in both air and water conservation. Over a long period of years we have actively engaged in the sponsorship of such research undertakings of our own. We have sponsored a variety of biological and engineering studies. I will leave with your subcommittee staff a copy of this annotated bibliography which abstracts over 60 papers which have been presented at API technical meetings starting back as far as 1931 and increasing in number over the years on a yearly basis. Senator MUSKIE. That will be included in the record following your statement. Mr. GAMMELGARD. Thank you, sir. One engineering project led to the development of data for use in the design of oil-water separators used extensively in refineries today. It is a matter of some pride with us that the American Petroleum Institute, and its supporting members, became aware of the importance of water conservation as far back as 1927, when this was not the publicized issue that it is today. In that year the institute, then in its infancy as a trade association, made a survey of the practices being followed by oil companies to curb water pollution. This study laid the foundation for programs that have been pursued ever since by the various branches of the industry. One such effort that deserves special notice is this "Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes," which I have here with me. It is the definitive work on this subject, and is regarded as a bible not only in our own industry but in other enterprises as well. It is now in six parts, two dealing with water pollution, one with chemical wastes, two with air pollution, and the latest part just issued 3 years ago deals with solid waste disposal. I will leave copies of these with your committee staff, sir. I would also like to point out that all developments resulting from research sponsored by API are, as a matter of policy, made publicly available at no licensing cost to the users within or without the oil industry. In recognition of the growing importance of both air and water conservation programs, the Board of Directors of the American Petroleum Institute voted last November to combine all of its varied activities in these areas under one unit called the Committee for Air and Water Conservation. This new committee has major status in the institute. It is already actively functioning and engaged in sponsoring a number of research projects. This background is cited merely for the evidence it gives of the sincerity of the oil industry's commitment to the cause served by S. 2947. We believe this legislation can make a major and lasting contribution. It would be most agreeable to us if we could speak with equal favor of S. 2987. Unfortunately, however, we find defects in the basic premise of this bill, and more defects in its specific provisions. The Water Quality Act of 1965, as it was enacted in the last session of Congress, has as its basis the sound concept of a true Federal-State partnership. We believe it would be a mistake to abandon this concept before giving it a fair trial. If the States had already been given a chance to implement the provisions of the Water Quality Act and had failed-if they had shown reluctance to do anything to clean up their waters-then there might be some justification for such a policy change as S. 2987 contemplates. The ink is barely dry on last year's Water Quality Act. As you members of the committee, who are the coauthors of this legislation, know better than anyone else, it has not been given any kind of real test in practice. And already, before there has been any chance to see how its provisions would work out, an entirely new approach is being proposed. It is entirely possible that the good cause of water conservation could be harmed by such a rapid change in approach. There are a number of specific objections that should be made to provisions in S. 2987. We will discuss some of the more important of them in the comments that follow: 1. Section 104 (B) directs planning agencies to consider the possibility of effluent charges. If by an effluent charge is ment the equivalent of a sewer charge a fee for service paid to an agency providing waste treatment, there can be no objection. But we have serious reservations about this if it could be interpreted to mean a charge imposed against a plant according to the composition of its effluent. For one thing, we believe an equitable system for assessing such charges would be exceedingly difficult to devise. This obstacle alone would be enough to suggest that effluent charges of this type should not receive any endorsement. We further feel that it would be out of keeping with the goal of this legislation to say to a business firm or municipality: "If you want to pour pollutants into the river, you can pay a fee for this right." The aim should be to conserve our waters-not to charge for polluting them. We feel it is one thing to have citizens pay a part of the cost of cleaning up a river that they use, another and quite different thing-to charge them a fee if they prefer to go on polluting it. In this connection, a survey of State Governors conducted by Congressman Jones, chairman of the Natural Resources and Power Sub committee of the House Government Operations Committee, found the majority of Governors opposed to federally imposed effluent charges. The chairman said of this survey result: "The opponents of the effluent charge contend it would be difficult to administer and might provide a license to pollute." 2. Section 304 extends the authority to establish water quality standards beyond interstate waters-as in present law-to navigable waters. The effect of this would seem to be to enlarge Federal authority to include practically all lakes and streams in the country. This is certainly a marked departure from the declared intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which acknowledges the primary responsibility of the States in dealing with water pollution. 3. Section 305 would greatly extend the power granted to the Secretary under the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This section would put the calling of any conference at the discretion of the Secretary and would give him the power to take this action even if only one State is involved. We are concerned about giving the Secretary so much discretionary power and the authority to call a conference on his own initiative even in cases where the problem is definitely intrastate. It seems to us that this is a long step away from the Federal-State partnership that is basic to the Water Quality Act of 1965. The incentive for State and local government authorities to act in the interest of water conservation could be seriously dimmed by legislation that turned all real authority and power in this matter over to Washington. 4. Sections 306 and 307 would remove the two mandatory 6-month waiting periods in present law. The first of these periods to be revoked by section 306-occurs between the time a conference makes its recommendations and a hearing board is called. The second mandatory waiting period, which would be revoked by section 397, requires at least a 6-month interval for compliance with a hearing board's recommendations before the issue can be taken to court. The 6-month periods in which to achieve compliance appear to be reasonable. The record shows that protracted proceedings have been avoided under the law as presently written, perhaps at least partly because time is left for compliance at each step along the way. Of 37 conferences held so far-involving 1,000 communities and 1,200 industrial plants-only 4 have moved to the hearing board stage and only 1 to the courts. 5. Section 309 would bind a court hearing an appeal of a hearing board's decision to the board's findings and recommendations-if supported by the hearing record. No added evidence, except something entirely new discovered after the board's hearing, could be introduced. This would certainly put those appealing the decision at an extreme disadvantage. We believe the implications of this provision should be carefully weighed. 6. Section 310 provides that the findings of a hearing board can be used in a private suit to establish prima facie the fact of pollution and its cause. Again, a business firm or local government involved in such a suit would be at a great disadvantage-the more so because the strict rules of evidence that apply in a court do not apply before |