412 



also review petition toxicology data for evaluation of sufficiency, and participate 

 in the establishment of tolerances for pesticides residues on or in food and 

 feedstuffs, They conduct (a) studies on the toxic action of pesticides in small 

 animals from low and high level exposure, (b) research on the toxicological 

 effects of pesticides administered to subhuman primates to determine potential 

 risks from long-term low level exposure, and(c) toxicological studies of pesti- 

 cides residues in estuarine and marine life. 



Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you this, Mr. Ruckelshaus. You have the 

 authority to ban mercury being discharged into the waters? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. We would have the authority, Mr. Chairman. In 

 any instances where a toxic substance is discharged into a waterway it 

 is in violation of water quality standards. And in the case of mer- 

 cury — we have, in all of the industries and installations where we have 

 found discharge of mercury to be occurring, stated that it was our goal 

 to eliminate any continued discharge of mercury from manmade 

 sources into the environment. 



Mr. Rogers. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be banned? Really, 

 we Iviiow the results of mercury in the water, don't we ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is right. 



Mr. Rogers. We know how to remove it and to neutralize it. It is 

 very simple. Is there any reason why it should not be banned ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. In discharging into the water, no; not that I 

 know of. 



Mr. Rogers. Would you consider doing tliat ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is what we have stated. 



Mr. Rogers. You say you want to phase it out. I am saying a ban, 

 a deadline ; no more mercury in the water. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. That is essentially what we have done, Mr. 

 Rogers. 



Mr. Rogers. I don't think it is at all, Mr. Ruckelshaus. I know 

 we can talk about this, but it has not been banned. Mercury is still 

 being put into the waters of the United States. You know it and I 

 Ivnow it. In fact, even some of the cases that were settled authorized 

 them to do it. '\'Vliy shouldn't it be banned, if you have that authority? 

 We know it is bad, there is no question about it. Shouldn't it be 

 banned ? 



IvFr. Ruckelshaus. I believe that what we are working toward is 

 the ban of mercury. 



Mr, Rogers. I am not saying working toward, I said ban now, a 

 deadline saying "No more after next week." Is there any reason this 

 shiouldn't be done? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. There is no reason. 



i\Ir. Rogers. Would you consider doing it ? 



]\Ir. Ruckelshaus. Yes; I would. 



3Ir. Rogers. Would you let me know what your decision finally is? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. Yes : I will. 

 (Tlie information follows:) 



EPA Position on Discharges of Meecvry 



The poi-^ition of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the discharge 

 of mercury to public waters is to eliminate all man-made discharges. EPA's 

 approach to this goal is to seek from all known industrial mercury dischargers 

 an immediate and substantial reduction. Experience shows this to be possible 

 and practical in most cases with a nominal effort on the part of industry. In 



