This committee is very familiar with the fact that the emphasis in congressional enactments relating to control of air pollution and water pollution has been on State enforcement.

The Department of Justice consequently has had referred to it only a single case under the Clean Air Act-a case involving the Bishop Processing Co., in Maryland-and its interstate air pollution. As a result of the litigation, this rendering plant is presently closed down. Likewise, only one suit has been brought under the water pollution control laws enacted in recent years, a case filed in 1960 against the city of St. Joseph, Mo., for pollution of the Missouri River by sewage. In that case, the pollution was terminated under supervision of the

court.

The major litigation statutory weapon in the Federal antipollution arsenal has been the 1899 provision commonly referred to as the Refuse Act (33 U.S.C. 407), prohibiting the deposit of refuse in navigable waters of the United States or their tributaries.

In the main, this is administered by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, in view of authority contained in the act for the Secretary of the Army to issue permits. However, recently the Interior Department, as administrator of water pollution control responsibilities now vested in the Environmental Protection Agency, has sponsored litigation under the act by the land and natural resources division of a type which promises to be extremely effective in fighting water pollution. On July 24, 1970, the Attorney General issued a press release advising of 10 suits to stop mercury pollution. Because the maximum criminal penalty for violation of the act is a $2,500 fine for a corporation, recourse was sought through civil suits for injunctions.

On October 29, 1970, you will be interested in knowing, we were able to announce that we had obtained agreement from the last of the companies involved to drastically curtail its discharges.

I submit a copy of each of these press releases for the record. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, the documents you refer to will appear at the appropriate place in the record.

(The documents follow:)

MERCURY POLLUTION

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

July 24, 1970.

Attorney General John N. Mitchell announced today that the Justice Department has authorized civil suits against 10 companies to stop mercury pollution of lakes and rivers in seven states.

Mr. Mitchell said the suits will be the first filed by the Department under the 1899 Refuse Act against the discharge of mercury into navigable waters.

The cases were submitted to the Department Tuesday by Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel.

Assistant Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa, head of the Land and Natural Resources Division, said United States Attorneys are being notified to file suits asking for injunctions to stop the discharge of mercury and to require the companies to take steps to remedy the effects of past pollution.

"Because mercury pollution is a very serious matter, civil injunction proceedings are being authorized instead of the usual criminal action under the Refuse Act, where the penalty is relatively light," Mr. Kashiwa explained. The maximum penalty for violation of the Act is a $2,500 fine for a corporation. The suits were authorized against:

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Bellingham, Washington, for discharging mercury into Puget Sound.

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Niagara Falls, New York, for discharging mercury into the Niagara River.

Oxford Paper Co., Rumford, Maine, for discharging mercury into the Androscoggin River.

Weyerhauser Company, Longview, Washington, for discharging mercury into the Columbia River.

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Augusta, Georgia, for discharging mercury into the Savannah River.

Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Delaware City, Delaware, for discharging mercury into the Delaware River.

Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, for discharging mercury into Pond Creek, which flows into the Tennessee River.

Allied Chemical Co., Solvay, New York, for discharging mercury into Onondaga Lake.

International Mining and Chemical Co., Chlor-Alkali Division, Orrington, Maine, for discharging mercury into the Penobscot River.

Pennwalt Chemical Co., Calvert City, Kentucky, for discharging mercury into the Tennessee River.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
October 29, 1970.

Attorney General John N. Mitchell announced today that the Department of Justice has obtained agreement from the last of eight companies it sued three months ago to limit mercury pollution of lakes and rivers in seven states.

Mr. Mitchell said all of the agreements limit the discharge of mercury to an average of eight ounces a day.

The agreement today was made with Diamond Shamrock Corporation to limit the mercury discharge from its chlor-alkali plant at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. It was contained in a stipulation filed in the United States District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

The suit was one of 10 authorized by the Justice Department against the eight companies on July 24, 1970.

The Federal Water Quality Administration had found that Diamond Shamrock discharged 8.6 pounds of mercury into Pond Creek, which flows into the Tennessee River, on May 7 and 6.5 pounds on May 26, 1970.

Assistant Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa, head of the Land and Natural Resources Division, said Diamond Shamrock agreed to continue to seek to reduce the total discharge of mercury from its plant, and to submit to the Justice Department by December 1 a proposed schedule of future reductions of mercury discharge.

Mr. Kashiwa said the acceptability of the present and proposed mercury discharges will be evaluated in the light of developing scientific knowledge about the effects of mercury in the environment.

Under the stipulation, the Justice Department may withdraw its consent and renew its application for preliminary injunction if Diamond Shamrock does not maintain its reductions in the discharge of mercury.

The stipulation also does not preclude the Justice Department from bringing any future action under the 1899 Refuse Act against the discharge of other substances by Diamond Shamrock plants.

On August 4, 1970, the Court had ordered Diamond Shamrock to limit its mercury discharge to one and a half pounds per day.

The Diamond Shamrock stipulation was the ninth entered in the mercury suits. In the remaining case, Oxford Paper Company, Rumford, Maine, closed its plant.

Mr. KASHIWA. The suits remain pending, and all of the mercury case defendants, except one, which has closed down its plant, have submitted plans for still further reductions.

The acceptability of present and proposed mercury discharges will be evaluated in the light of developing scientific knowledge about the effects of mercury in the environment.

Where dangerous toxic substances are present in an industrial discharge into navigable waters or their tributaries, it is my intention, and the Attorney General vigorously supports me, to seek a civil in

junctive type of relief as well as instituting any criminal proceeding which may be warranted where the latter may not be effective in abating the objectionable discharge.

This policy was recently implemented in a civil action filed December 9, 1970, seeking to enjoin Armco Steel Corp. from discharging significant quantities of cyanide, phenol, and other suspended solids into the Houston ship channel in Houston, Tex.

I am submitting for the record a press release concerning the filing of this case, which the Attorney General announced as beginning a second round of legal action against industrial polluters.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, the document referred to will be inserted in the record at the appropriate point.

(The document follows:)

CYANIDE POLLUTION

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

December 9, 1970.

Attorney General John N. Mitchell announced today that the Department of Justice is beginning a second round of legal action against industrial polluters with the filing of a suit to halt cyanide pollution of the Houston Ship Channel. The Sheffield plant of Armco Steel Corporation was charged with discharging cyanides, phenols, and other suspended solids into the channel in Houston,

Texas.

Mr. Mitchell authorized United States Attorney Anthony J. P. Farris to file the civil action under the 1899 Refuse Act in the United States District Court in Houston.

The suit charged that Armco has been discharging significant quantities of cyanide or cyanide compounds and other suspended solids on a daily and continuing basis into the waters of the channel.

Assistant Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa, head of the Land and Natural Resources Division, said he has received reports indicating that the plant discharges more than 1,000 pounds of cyanides and 350 pounds of phenols daily into the channel.

The suit said the ". . . wastes being deposited in the waters of the Houston Ship Channel by the defendant are highly toxic" and "constitute an immediate health hazard to all life (which might come in substantial contact with such waters) and cause irreparable injury to the ecological balance of said Ship Channel and the larger bodies of water into which it flows."

Armco, the suit said, has not obtained a required permit from the Chief of Engineers to discharge refuse matter into navigable waters of the United States. Mr. Kashiwa said the cyanide pollution action is similar to the suits filed by the Justice Department in July, 1970, to stop mercury pollution. In nine cases, agreements to limit mercury discharges were obtained. A tenth plant was closed.

"Here again we are dealing with toxic substances, cyanides and phenol," Mr. Kashiwa said. "The seriousness of the charges requires a civil injunctive type of relief. A criminal action with a fine of $2,500 would be a mere slap on the wrist. It is the policy of the Department of Justice to pursue civil injunctive relief under the circumstances."

Mr. Kashiwa said his Division is studying similar complaints in other parts of the country and will take appropriate action where necessary.

The suit asked for a court order permanently enjoining the company from permitting or causing the discharge or deposit of any cyanide, phenols, or any other refuse matter into the Houston Ship Channel.

Mr. KASHIWA. Similar situations in other parts of the country are currently under study, and the necessary action will be taken as soon as necessary technical information and recommendations from the appropriate Federal agencies can be obtained.

Department civil litigation against water pollution includes the following pending actions:

1. An action against the Florida Power & Light Co. to stop present and future thermal pollution of Biscayne Bay through present and proposed discharges by the company of heated water causing destruction of marine organisms and interference with the fragile ecology of Biscayne Bay National Monument.

2. An action filed December 17, 1970, to enjoin the Burdett Oxygen Co. of Cleveland, Inc., from discharging lime slurry into the Cuyahoga River.

3. An action against Standard Brands, Inc., et al., to enjoin continued discharge of residual waste carbohydrate and protein material into the Hudson River.

4. An action filed December 15, 1970, against General Motors Corp. to enjoin the company from discharging industrial waste from its Tarrytown, N.Y., assembly plant into the Hudson River or New York Harbor.

5. And an action against Marathon Battery Co. seeking to enjoin that company from discharging cadmium and other substances in New York Harbor.

In a similar proceeding, a decree was recently entered in an action brought by the Department against Berks Association in Philadelphia requiring that company not to use its impoundment lagoons to store oil and requiring it to remove from the lagoons the oil sludge which they now contain.

The Land and Natural Resources Division is having considerable occasion to defend its client agencies in suits alleging that they have not met requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It is our policy in such cases to advise our clients to meet such requirements in letter and in spirit.

The Department's Criminal Division reports that in fiscal year 1970, 129 criminal actions under the Refuse Act were filed. During that period, 65 cases were terminated, resulting in 17 pleas of nolo contendere, 42 determinations of guilt, and six dismissals. The cases filed and matters received from all sources during the fiscal year 1970 totaled 185.

I am submitting a copy of this report, which also contains information concerning cases filed in the first 4 months of fiscal year 1971, for the record.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, the document referred to will be placed in the record at the appropriate place.

(The document follows:)

REFUSE ACT CASES AND MATTERS BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1970, OCT. 31, 1970

Mr. KASHIWA. The recent centralization of major responsibilities for administration of environmental legislation in the Environmental Protection Agency should aid in the orderly flow of case referrals to the Department of Justice. An increase in the number of legal actions brought against polluters is anticipated.

On last Friday, December 18, 1970, the Attorney General referred to a press conference to the close working relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Land and Natural Resources Division, and of the joint efforts to develop procedures for expediting the filing of the expected increasing number of environmental pollution control suits.

At the same time, he announced the establishment in the Land and Natural Resources Division of a Pollution Control Section, with responsibility for all trial court litigation of the United States in the environmental quality field, including criminal litigation, which was formerly the responsibility of the Criminal Division.

I submit for the record a copy of the Attorney General's statement. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, the document referred to will appear in the record at the appropriate point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN N. MITCHELL

Before taking your questions, I would like to call attention to an area of activity that we haven't publicly emphasized lately but which I feel deserves your attention.

I refer to pollution control litigation, with particular reference to our work with the new Environmental Protection Agency, headed by William D. Ruckelshaus.

As in the case of other Government departments and agencies, EPA refers its civil and criminal suits to the Department of Justice, which determines whether there is a basis for prosecution, and if so, proceeds with court action. I wish to say that I am delighted with the aggressive manner in which Mr. Ruckelshaus has taken hold of this new agency. In the two weeks that he has held the office of Administrator, he already has referred two major cases to us and has been in consultation with our lawyers on others.

The first case was ARMCO Steel Corporation, which we filed suit against on December 9, charging the company with cyanide pollution of the Houston Ship Channel.

Today, I would like to announce that we are filing suit this morning against Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation for discharging substantial quantities of cyanide into the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland. Mr. Ruckelshaus said when he asked the Department to file the suit that the 180-day notice filed against the company had expired. We are filing a civil suit to seek immediate injunctive relief under the Refuse Act of 1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Act to halt the discharge of deleterious material into the river.

The ARMCO case in the Houston area and the Jones and Laughlin case in the Cleveland area, I believe, point to a new and stronger direction in antipollution litigation. I can assure you that it foreshadows more of the same. And I am happy to add that this is partly due to the close working relationship established between EPA and the Justice Department from the very beginning. For example, EPA and our Land and Natural Resources Division, under Mr. Shiro Kashiwa, have consulted with each other to develop procedures for expediting the filing of suits.

55-360-71-pt. 1-74