so they do not follow the format established by the National Plan. In many areas, there are good industry plans but, again, these have not been coordinated with the National Plan.

4. What is the current capability of adequacy of the Coast Guard's current funding, equipment, and manpower to respond to requirements under national or regional contingency plans?

Response. The current capability and adequacy of the Coast Guard to respond in accordance with the Contingency Plan is very good. We have facilities which include communications, vehicles, boats, vessels, aircraft, and personnel capable of response and command during an incident. These are located nationwide in the coastal zone, ports and harbors, and Great Lakes. Our operational system provides for automatic control of resources deployed in response to an incident. Our facilities are available for emergency responses; however, they must be made available at the expense of other mission areas. The planning and administration at the district level and below must also be accomplished at the expense of other programs. While we have the response resources, we have no equipment capable of affecting pollution clean up and no funds in the fiscal year 1969 or 1970 budget to purchase such equipment.

5. What are the sizes of U.S. and foreign oil carrying vessels plying U.S. ports each year? In answering this question, the Committee would be interested in a distinction between the number of vessels, the number of visits, and the total oil carried each year according to vessel size?

Response. In 1965, the world merchant fleets consisted of almost 3,500 tankers over 1,000 gross tons, 400 of which were U.S. flag. The number of these 3,100 foreign tankers which entered U.S. ports annually is not known exactly but is estimated to be close to 1,500. In addition, there are several thousand tank ships and tank barges under the 1,000 gross tons on the American inland waterways. In 1966, 6,100 foreign tanker visits were made to U.S. ports. These vessels averaged 25,000 tons of cargo and 2,500 tons of bunker capacity. Four hundred U.S. tankers made 3,000 visits to U.S. ports and averaged 14,000 tons cargo and 1.300 tons bunker capacity. In 1966, the latest year for which the Corps of Engineers has compiled figures over 300,000,000 tons of petroleum products were transportd in U.S. water-borne commerce. It is estimated that there has been little change in the amount over the past two years for, although petroleum usage has increased, pipe lines are carrying a higher percentage of the total volume. Additionally, Corps of Engineers' reports indicate that 45,000,000 tons of chemicals and chemical products were transported in U.S. water-borne commerce during 1966.

6. What was the Coast Guard's experience with oil pollution incidents during 1968 and 1969, including costs of clean up where available?

Response. We have no data available on clean up costs for spills but will attempt to obtain such data. The Coast Guard investigated and reported 704 violations of pollution laws in FY 1968. The Coast Guard actively participated in control activities in over 150 cases in FY 1968.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This is in further response to the letter of 3 March 1969 from Senators Spong and Boggs concerning questions which resulted from the hearings of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on 27 February 1969.

Question. There have been considerable discussions during the course of the hearings on the need to provide enforcement regulations for oil and sewage pollution from vessels on the Great Lakes. What are the existing Canadian regulations, current legislative proposals, and possible areas of conflict with S. 7 or S. 544?

Response. The basic authority for water pollution control in Canadian waters is contained in sectiion 495-A of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, as amended.

This Act approves the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954. The Act authorizes the Govenor in Council to make regulations to carry out and give effect to the provisions of the Convention and also for regulating and preventing the pollution by oil from any ships of any inland, minor or other waters of Canada. The regulations issued pursuant to that Act are contained in the Order in Council P.C. 1960-166 of 11 February 1960, as amended. These regulations, titled "Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations", specify the detailed procedures for implementation of the 1954 Convention. Section 33 of the Act Respecting Fisheries of 1932, as amended, provides that no one should throw overboard ballast, coal ashes, stones, or other prejudicial or deleterious substances in rivers, harbors, or roadsteads or in any water where fishing is carried on. This section also prohibits putting lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing in any water frequented by fish or that flows into such water. Section 18 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as amended, provides that no person shall throw or deposit any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or like rubbish of any description that is liable to interfere with navigation in any water, any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water. Section 19 prohibits the throwing or depositing of stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes, or other material or rubbish that is liable to sink to the bottom in any water any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water.

The Canadian Embassy has indicated that there is no present law or regulation pertaining to the discharge of sewage by vessels. The Canadian Parliament is presently considering Bill S-23, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was read for the first time on 17 December 1968. This amendment if enacted authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations regulating and preventing the pollution of Canadian waters by chemicals, garbage, sewage and other substances from ships. This amendment would also authorize the Minister to remove or destroy vessels that are in distress, stranded, wrecked, sunk or abandoned, whose cargo or fuel is causing or is likely to cause pollution of any Canadian water or constitute a danger to waterfowl or marine life is likely to damage coastal property or interfere with the enjoyment theeof, and to sell such vessel so removed or its cargo and apply the proceeds from that sale toward meeting expenses incurred in removing it.

The present regulations and proposed amendments to the Canadian legislation differ from the provisions contained in S. 7 or S. 544. Although the regulations on the Great Lakes will not be the same in Canadian and U.S. waters, there are no conflicts envisioned between Canadian and U.S. regulations. We will continue to monitor the progress of Canadian Bill S-23 and will obtain any regulations issued as a result of that amendment.

Sincerely yours,

W. J. SMITH,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.

Senator SPONG. These hearings are in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Friday, February 28, 1969).

WATER POLLUTION-1969

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1969

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to recess, room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Spong, Eagleton, Cranston, Cooper, Boggs, and Baker.

Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; M. Barry Meyer, counsel; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority); Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff members.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

This hearing this morning is a continuation of the hearing that was begun some time ago, with respect to pending legislation, S. 7. In addition, we appear to have been, by force of events, forced to expand the inquiry to consider the specific incident of the Santa Barbara spill, because of its relationship to the provisions of S. 7, and I expect we will get into that situation somewhat this morning.

Because of the nature of the Santa Barbara issue, it might be well to focus attention again upon the provisions of the bill which are the subject of this inquiry.

First of all, we are interested in testimony bearing upon the provisions of the bill dealing with sewage from vessels, oil pollution, with the control of pollution activities connected with the issuance of Federal licenses and permits, and research provisions.

The witness this morning is the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Walter J. Hickel. It is a privilege to welcome him for the first time. as Secretary, to testify on subjects which are of interest to his Department and to this committee. May I therefore, Mr. Secretary, extend that very hearty welcome to you this morning.

Secretary HICKEL. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. We appreciate your willingness to appear, so early in your administration. I realize that it takes some time to settle into a job of this kind, and although we issued an earlier invitation, I understand completely that you were hardly in a position at that time to testify; so we do welcome you this morning and invite you to proceed with your testimony in any way that you see fit.

I know that you have with you several aides, three of them old friends, and another new one, Joe Moore, Commissioner of the

(941)

FWPCA; Dr. W. T. Pecora, Director of the USGS; Under Secretary Russell Train; and Frank Bracken, counsel.

It is a pleasure to welcome you. I suspect Senator Boggs might also like to issue a formal expression of welcome.

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to join you in welcoming Secretary Hickel and his associates this morning, and I think you have covered it well, and we are glad to hear you, Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER J. HICKEL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY RUSSELL E. TRAIN, UNDER SECRETARY; JOE G. MOORE, JR., COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION; WILLIAM T. PECORA, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; AND FRANK BRACKEN, COUNSEL

Secretary HICKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boggs, and members of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee.

Senator MUSKIE. Oh, yes, Senator Cranston has a special interest in these matters. Senator, won't you come up here?

Senator CRANSTON. Thank you.

Secretary HICKEL. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement that I would like to read, and with your permission, I will start. Senator MUSKIE. By all means.

Secretary HICKEL. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today and to discuss the problems caused by oil spills on the ocean waters, and more specifically the legislation that is the subject matter of your hearings. We are indeed grateful to you for postponing the Department of the Interior's presentation until today.

We have just this week named an Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research whose confirmation hearings will soon be held. Hopefully, in a short period of time the full new team will be assembled and we can get on with the tasks at hand.

I have been looking forward to this appearance because I have a personal commitment to preserve, improve, and enhance the Nation's water quality. I support the basic concepts as outlined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. I am convinced that with proper administration, adequate financing, and good, tough enforcement, the objectives as outlined by Congress can be attained.

Our Federal program requires a cooperative effort by local, State, and National Governments, coupled with the support of private industry and the general public. It is only when all these elements of society work together that we can realize progress in cleaning up the polluted waters and prevent further pollution.

The Department of the Interior must utilize to the utmost the present laws. We must seek new authority where new authority is needed. We must be willing to move in new directions and assist the States in developing programs which will prevent as well as control water pollution. We must establish the proper guidelines so that each entity knows its responsibilities.

Industry must know what is expected of it, as must the municipalities, the States, and the regional and interstate groups. We must de

velop the technical capability that is needed. We must have training programs. There is much that needs to be done.

I am committed to the effort and will do all I can to improve and advance the programs designed to protect and improve the quality of this Nation's water.

One of the objectives we hope to accomplish as soon as possible is a total review of the Department's water quality programs and the administration of them. In carrying out this review, we will call upon the experts within the Department of the Interior as well as request ideas and thoughts from some of the State water pollution control administrators.

We will, also, consult with representatives of the private sector on ways for improving our programs and their administration. It may be necessary for us to ask Congress for new authority but we want to reserve judgment on that point until we have made our review.

SANTA BARBARA CATASTROPHE

The unfortunate catastrophe that we have just experienced off the coast of California has taken a substantial portion of our time and attention. I think it would be of interest to the members of the subcommittee if I would briefly describe the Department's involvement and the actions taken to prevent another such incident in the future. On January 28 the oil well then being drilled off the coast of Santa Barbara had a blowout, causing a continuing release of gas and oil. The Department of the Interior had men on the scene from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the Geological Survey who kept us constantly informed of the developments. The operations and activities of the U.S. Government were coordinated by the Coast Guard and Interior representatives as set forth under the national contingency plan.

On February 7, I ordered all oil companies operating on Federal lands off the coast of Santa Barbara to halt drilling and production operations. This cessation still is in effect.

I have ordered an intensive review of the existing regulations pertaining to drilling and production. Along with that review, I have asked the interested agencies to develop tentative guidelines for regulating these Outer Continental Shelf activities. On February 20, representatives of oil companies with offshore interests reviewed with my staff ways to strengthen our tentative guidelines. They were helpful in their comments and suggestions. We, also, intend to discuss these guidelines with the officials of the State of California.

As a result, the Department of the Interior will be able to issue revised orders directly relating to Santa Barbara drilling and production operations. We will also be developing safety regulations relating to all offshore drilling and production.

As you know, at my suggestion, the President appointed a special panel of scientists and engineers to investigate the Santa Barbara incident and to make recommendations on oil pollution. We will do the needful in adopting new regulations and plans for the future.

On September 13, 1968, the former administration offered lease sales on Federal lands off the coast of Louisiana. On February 20, I post

25-679-69-pt. 4- -3