73 



Mr. Bracken. I Avould like to say, in our legislation we submitted 

 amending some of the other sections of the Water Pollution Act, we 

 included a requirement for establisliment of efHuents discliarges. I 

 think this would probably help what we are talking about here. 



The States would establish the effluents requirements, or in the event 

 they didn't do it, the Federal Government would do it and then an 

 injunction could be brought in the event it appeared that the poten- 

 tial industry was going to violate these effluents requirements. 



This gets at the points before you get into the water quality 

 standards. 



Senator Hollings. In other words, the fundamental law puts the 

 responsibility with the Department, but also provides in the same law 

 that the Department turns over to the States the setting of these stand- 

 ards at the present time, is that correct ? The various water pollution 

 control authorities more or less set it ? 



Mr. Bracken, That is right. At the present time it is my under- 

 standing there is no set effluents requirement. This is something we are 

 asking authority to establish in the new legislation. 



Senator Hollings. Is there an effluents requirement in the So\ith 

 Carolha case, Mr. Secretary? Do you know? In the BASF case? 



Mr. Bracken. I think it is a question of water quality standards 

 rather than effluents requirements. 



Senator Hollings. The procedure would be that that plant would 

 first submit its plans to you or not ? 



Secretai"y Hickel. We would expect they would submit their plans 

 and we would review them with respect to effluent discharges so that 

 harm to the marine life in the area would not occur. The following 

 South Carolina nondegradation statement specifies that plants which 

 could constitute new sources of pollution must provide the highest and 

 best degree of waste treatment practicable. In order to judge whether 

 the waste treatment equipment represent the best available, advance 

 notice of plans is required. That is why the South Carolina standards 

 provide for the furnishing of such information to the Secretary of the 

 Interior. 



Senator Hollings. Have they submitted those plants to you ? 



Secretary Hickel. I don't think they have at this point ; no. 



[The plans were subsequently received for the record :] 



[Published in the oflScial minutes of the South Carolina Pollution Control 

 Authority, December 4, 1968, and approved bv the Secretary of the Interior, 

 April 21, 1969] 



South Carolina 



Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards will 

 not be lowered in quality imless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated 

 to the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority that such change is justifiable 

 as a result of necessary economic or social development and vdll not interfere 

 with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of such waters. Any in- 

 dustrial, public or private project or development which could constitute a new 

 source of pollution or an increased source of pollution to high quality waters 

 will be required by the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority as part of 

 the initial project design, to pi'ovide the highest and best degree of waste treat- 

 ment practicable under existing technology. In implementing the policy of this 

 Piiragraph as it relates to interstate streams, tlie Secretary of the Interior will 

 be advised and provided with such information as he will need from time to lime 

 to protect tlie interests of the United States and the autliority of the Secretary 

 in maintaining high quality of interstate waters. 



