vessels moving in interstate commerce must comprise a uniform, nationwide system. This is not to say that state laws on hazardous substances must be totally preempted or that state administrative officers should play no role in the cleanup of discharges of these substances. State plans for the prevention and cleanup of such discharges should, however, not go into effect without prior approval by the President or his delegate to insure that the laws of individual states are compatible with the national system of regulation. Nothing in any state's law should be permitted to conflict with the Coast Guard's regulations on the transportation of hazardous substances or with the President's powers under section 12 of the Federal Act to establish cleanup procedures and to conduct cleanup operations.

To the extent that state laws impose liabilities in excess of amounts that the Congress finds to be insurable, the state laws should, we think, be preempted. Otherwise the risk of liability under state law would stand as a harsh deterrent to the movement of vessels from state to state. State laws that impose civil or criminal penalties in addition to any provided under federal law should also be preempted.

There is also a need to avoid overlap between federal laws. If the Water Pollution Control Act is amended to provide for the payment of damages for discharges of hazardous substances, there should be no penalties assessable under the Refuse Act for the same kinds of discharges.

In a statement submitted to this Subcommittee on March 5, 1971, in connection with the Subcommittee's review of federal water quality programs, AWO called the Subcommittee's attention to the fact that a multitude of newly enacted state laws are undermining the federal program to regulate oil pollution from vessels that was created by the 1970 amendments to the Federal Act. We urged that Congress act promptly to bring order out of what is becoming a chaotic situation by providing a unified federal-state system regulating oil discharges. We urge, in the case of other hazardous substances, that the Congress provide at the outset for the development of a unified system of regulation.

NEED FOR DATA AS BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

Discharges of hazardous polluting substances and their prevention and cleanup present questions far more complex than those involving oil discharges, a subject with which this Subcommittee has dealt in detail for some years. Some of the essential questions that must be addressed in order to lay a realistic groundwork for legislation are the following:

(1) What substances are to be regulated?-As yet no substances have been finally designated as hazardous pursuant to the mandate of section 12 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Until the substances are known, it is not possible to know the risks involved and the remedies required. We support the provisions of S. 1014 that require the Administrator of EPA to identify hazardous substances and to report on existing evidence of the effects of their discharge. This seems a necessary first step in devising regulations limiting or prohibiting discharges.

(2) What steps to clean up or mitigate discharges are to be required?—Regulations establishing recommended methods of removal have not yet been promulgated under section 12 of the Federal Act. It is difficult even to estimate the amount of potential liabilities for cleanup costs that may be involved, if cleanup methods are unknown. Again, the procedures contemplated by S. 1014 will help illuminate these questions.

(3) What insurance is available against liability for discharges?—It may not be possible to answer this question with any certainty until the answers to the first two questions are known. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee will need to hear directly from the insurance industry on this essential issue.

(4) Should the Federal Government bear risks that cannot be commercially insured?—This question will be squarely before the Congress if, as seems inevitable, unlimited and absolute liabilities are found to be uninsurable. AWO has previously suggested the creation of a federal insurance program to cover losses that are not commercially insurable and cannot be covered in any other way. (5) What information is currently available to Congress on the prevention of hazardous discharges and on cleanup methods and cost?-Representatives of the manufacturers and carriers of hazardous products have worked with the Coast Guard for over five years to identify the hazards of liquid cargoes and to design vessel equipment, tanks and handling systems to transport these substances safe

ly. Coast Guard regulations on transporting these substances are in existence and are constantly being revised in consultation with industry. New regulations covering barges came into effect on June 1, 1970. The chemical industry is now implementing a national emergency reporting system to provide prompt action and technical advice in the event of chemical spills. These various measures are having effect. It may never be possible to eliminate entirely the risk that certain cargoes may cause very damaging spills, but such spills are now quite rare. Congress will need information on all of these subjects from manufacturers, carriers and the Federal Government.

It is not possible within the compass of this statement to discuss in detail the questions outlined above. These are important questions, however, and they deserve further careful consideration by the Subcommittee. We would urge that, before this Subcommittee acts on the subject of hazardous substances, it hold further hearings to develop facts on which realistic legislation may be based.

59-068-71-pt. 3

STATEMENT OF THE AMWAY CORPORATION

By JAY VAN ANDEL, Chairman of the Board

PHOSPHATES THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE?

The Great-Phosphate-in-Detergents-Debate of 1970 has been characterized by a confusing mixture of truths, half-truths, and confusion in much of what has been written and spoken. Separating fact from fiction, and emotion from reason, has not been easy. The goal of clean water is universally accepted, but the proposed means of achieving it are conflicting and often misunderstood.

Hasty action to remove some or all phosphates from detergents and to market huge quantities of non-phosphate laundry products in their place will result in playing a game of chemical Russian Roulette with our lakes and streams.

Laundry detergents, soaps and other cleaning products are mixtures of a variety of chemicals. Some of these chemicals are organic and more or less biodegradable-that is, they can be consumed by bacteria and converted int simpler and presumably less harmful substances. Many of the chemicals used are inorganic, soluble in water, and cannot be degraded or consumed by bacteria. Some of these chemicals, such as phosphorus, are natural elements and act as nutrients to plants in the water, such as algae.

Very little is actually known today about the total effect on the environment of pouring billions of pounds of any such chemical-organic or inorganic-into our streams and lakes.

Public and governmental concern and pressure has brought about a premature substitution of certain new untested ingredients such as NTA for part of the phosphate in some detergents. Manufacturers with considerable reluc tance have begun to use small quantities of NTA in place of some phosphate to try to meet the public clamor for immediate action. But recently the use of NTA as a substitute for phosphate has been the subject of widespread concern; yet only a few months ago some ecologists were proclaiming its attributes in the most glowing and unquestioned terms. The effects on the environment of draining huge quantities of this chemical into streams are simply too complex and unknown at this time for anyone to be able to make a sound judgment.

Public clamor for action has also spawned the introduction into the market of a number of "non-phosphate" detergents. These products use mixtures of various chemicals that have been used as part of the formulas in various de tergents for many years-chemicals such as washing soda, borax, sodium metasilicate, surfactants, and even table salt.

One of these new "non-phosphate" products recently introduced to the market contains 45% table salt (sodium chloride) as one of its principal constituents. Now the detergent industry has long known that sodium chloride can be used as a detergent ingredient, although it has no known detergent action; it is merely an inert additive or a bulk filler. But the environmentally concerned consumer who uses such a product is only trading "phosphate down the drain" for "table salt down the drain", thereby possibly trading fresh water for salt lakes.

Other "non-phosphate" detergents use large quantities (as much as 60%) of washing soda. This compound, chemically known as sodium carbonate, is not only being utilized in detergents but also in combination with soap as a water softening ingredient. In vast quantities, it might increase the alkalinity of streams and lakes, upsetting the ecological balance by killing microorganisms upon which higher forms of life depend for food. As a result, the entire biological food chain. ending with fish, could be seriously impaired.

Table salt can only be removed from waste water at sewage plants through extremely costly distillation plants (such as are used to convert sea water into fresh water). There is no presently known inexpensive way to remove washing soda from waste water during sewage treatment. In order for these chemicals to completely replace the more efficient phosphate, they will have to be used in vast quantities-billions of pounds-if the soap and detergent industry moves entirely away from phosphate formulas to these new mixtures. Non-phosphate, non

NTA detergents as presently available perform poorly on wash-and-wear, permanent-press type fabrics which often compose over half of the modern laundry mix. They also perform poorly in hard water, and for heavily soiled laundry. Since performance is considerably lowered with such products, the consumer will be tempted to use mort of the substitute compounds in hope of achieving the excellent results formerly obtained from phosphate compounds.

The effects of pouring billions of pounds of table salt, washing soda, or similar chemicals into our lakes and streams may well be a much greater threat to our environment than continued use of phosphates. Trading the better known effects of a chemical that could be easily removed from sewage, such as phosphate, for the unknown effects of hard-to-remove chemicals may be a bad bargain, ecologilogically and economically.

The problem to be solved then is how can we provide consumers with effective, low-cost laundry compounds which either we can be certain do not need to be removed from waste water, or can be economically removed at sewage treatment plants.

Several solutions present themselves. First, based upon present environmental knowledge, the only way we can be certain that laundry products would not further contribute to water pollution or fertilization would be to stop using all detergents, including soaps, water softeners, "non-phosphate" products, bleaches everything.

If we were to stop pouring any chemical mixture down our drains and were to use only clear water for washing and cleaning, we would obviously make an improvement.

If, however, we used only clear water for washing and cleaning, America would still not have clean lakes and streams. Soaps and detergents are estimated to contribute less than 17% of the total phosphate which enters our waters. A large amount is also contributed by crop fertilizer, animal manure, dirt, bacteria and other nutrient run off from farmlands, feed lots, and gardens. Also, industrial and human wastes which are not properly removed by sewage treatment because most sewage plants are inadequate, contribute not only phosphate but many other undesirable chemicals and bacteria. And of course washing clothes in clear water would still result in millions of pounds of dirt and bacteria from the clothes going into the drain and ultimately to streams and likes, if not removed at a treatment plant. Clear water would of course only do a very poor job of washing, and such a solution would be neither workable nor acceptable. Secondly, we can re-formulate laundry products, eliminating the phosphates. This method is being strongly promoted by public pressure today. However, it is highly questionable whether reformulation will even partially solve problems of nutrient-rich waters. As long as any chemicals continue to enter streams and lakes in such great quantity, there is a strong possibility that the new phosphate-substitute formulas may be even more ecologically difficult to control than the old phosphate products, which at least we know we can remove at sewage plants.

We must also consider that such new formulas create many new and complex problems such as increased corrosion of washing machines, and inefficient performance on synthetic, and wash-and-wear fabrics. We will also have to contend with lower performance in hard water (even when the new formulas are used in considerably greater quantities than present phosphate detergents), higher consumer costs, plus limited use in automatic machines, etc. In view of these facts it then becomes apparent that the value of substitute chemicals is serisously limited as a real solution to "the phosphate problem" (or more correctly, "the total eutrophication problem").

But we already have available to us a for more comprehensive and effective and economical solution to the problem of detergent chemicals entering streams and lakes. Although we know very little about lake eutrophication and the effect of complex mixtures of various chemicals drained into our waterways, we do know a great deal, right now, about how to remove various chemicals in water solution from sewage water. The technology for removing chemicals from water is well developed and very advanced, although the use of this technology with regard to sewage treatment unfortunately has been limited by the taxpayers' indifference and reluctance to pay for proper sewage treatment.

Therefore, a logical solution, both reasonable and workable, is to have a Federal agency specify which chemicals may be used not only in detergents and soaps but in any product that may find its way into sewage drains, and allow the use of only those chemicals that can be easily removed from waste water. It should be also mandatory for municipal and industrial sewage treatment plants

to install equipment capable of removing these chemicals. In this way the Federal and municipal governments together with the industrial and public sector will be coordinated on a total plan to restore the quality of our waters.

Not all chemicals can be removed easily and economically or with the same type of equipment. But processes are available today that are reliable and economical for removing a number of commonly used detergent chemicals from sewage water at municipal sewage plants. For instance, phosphates can be removed by an inexpensive process with an operational cost of less than $2. per person per year at a municipal plant, (even in primary stage plants) and the process will not only remove detergent phosphates but sewage phosphates as well, for about the same cost. Since at least half of the phosphate entering streams and lakes comes from sewage, it would make eminently more sense to remove phosphate from all sources at the city sewage plant than to eliminate only part of it from detergents at the point of manufacture. And since detergent re-formulation with phosphate substitutes might introduce chemicals much more difficult to remove than phosphate, and potentially more harmful to the environment, it would make good sense to go no further down the reformulation path until we are sure of all the results.

Laundry detergent manufacturers do not use phosphates because they have no regard for the environment. They have been accused of resisting change; of being able to produce products without phosphate, but unwilling to change because it would hurt their profits, and of being environmentally unconcerned. Such accusations are not based on fact. If the expense of phosphate substitutes necessitated increased costs to the manufacturer, the cost would be passed on to the consumer as is true in any manufactured product. Profit structure would not be affected. Detergent manufacturers buy phosphates from chemical suppliers as they do other chemicals, and they have no vested interest in promoting phosphates.

Laundry detergent manufacturers, however, know a great deal more about the chemistry of soaps and detergents and other cleaning products than do most of their critics, no matter how sincerely motivated such critics may be. They are aware that a hasty change in direction at this time may literally, and ecologically, be "jumping from the frying pan into the fire." Therefore, although the detergent industry can produce phosphate substitute products immediately if public pressure demands (although such products are markedly inferior in performance), conscientious manufacturers are very aware that until a great Ideal more is known about the entire situation, it may be far wiser not to take any premature action or make any radical changes which could expose our environment to the possibility of what are presently unknown hazards. Phosphate is well known and understood and is economically manageable. New directions— new chemicals-new chemical mixtures-are unknowns.

Another possible danger of great magnitude could be legislation at local levels which has not been coordinated with a Federal master plan structured upon knowledge and assessment of all of the options. Some state and local governments have been bowing to public pressure and threatening to pass hasty laws requiring detergents to be formulated without phosphates or with lower phosphate content. Such local legislation, if it should proliferate, will only add to confusion. It may bring greater ecological damage as well as result in higher costs to the consumer.

A far more sensible approach is to set a reasonable top limit on phosphate usage in products at the Federal level now. The 20% P2Os (8.7% P) level used in Canada is practical. This would buy some time for scientists to engage in relevant research. A Federal law, as previously mentioned, should require certification of all chemicals to be used in detergents to the effect that they are considered removable at sewage plants, or considered not harmful to streams or lakes even if not removed. Following these guidelines, the manufacturers would be able to formulate from this certified list of chemicals the different products needed for various purposes-heavy duty laundry-hard water laundry-soft water laundry-bleaching-stain removal-with full consideration for environmental concerns. Such a scientific and logical approach, properly coordinated at the Federal level only, would provide the greatest possibility of bringing all of us to the ultimate goal of clean water.

The emotional tactics of hurling invective, printing outdated, confusing and inaccurate phosphate percentage lists, and trying to reformulate detergents in local legislative halls are not effective methods. In fact it is quite possible that a certified list of government approved chemicals, evaluated under conditions of