11 



visory Harbors Act from supersession by the 1899 Act. Tlie Sui>ervisory Harbors 

 Act provides a special authority to control transit in and from tlie harbors of 

 New York, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads, Virginia. This authority has been 

 used to regulate ocean dumping. The proposed Act would replace that authority. 

 A portion of the Act of August 5, 1886 (33 U.S.C. §407a), which pertains to 

 deposits of debris from mines and stamp works, and which is covered by this bill 

 or the Refuse Act, is also repealed. A provision contained in the Rivers and 

 Harbors Act of 1905 (33 U.S.C. § 419), which has been used to buttress the Corps 

 of Engineers' authority to regulate ocean dumping, is superseded, insofar as it 

 authorizes action that would be regulated by this proposal. Lastly, section 13 of 

 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 407), commonly known as the 

 Refuse Act, is superseded, but only insofar as it applies to dumping of material 

 in the waters covered by subsection 4 ( b ) of this proposal. 



Another portion of the proposed bill, section 7, deals with the relationship 

 of this proposed legislation to other laws. Generally, except as provided in sub- 

 sections 7(b) and 7(c), it provides that after the Act's effective date, existing 

 licenses, permits, or authorizations would be terminated to the extent they au- 

 thorize activity covered by this proposal, and that further licenses, permits, or 

 authorizations of a similar nature could not be issued. 



Subsection 7(b) maintains present responsibility and authority contained in 

 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and provides that the prohibitory provisions of 

 this proposal do not apply to actions taken under that Act. However, the AEC 

 must consult with the Administrator before issuing a permit to conduct any 

 activity othe^\^^se regulated by this proposal. Moreover, the AEC must comply 

 with the radioactive-material standards set by the Administrator, and the Ad- 

 ministrator is directed to consider the policy expressed in this proposal along 

 with the proposed criteria-basing factors in setting such standards for the waters 

 covered by this proposal. 



Subsection 7(c) relates to authorities contained in the Rivers and Harbors 

 Act of 1899. respecting dredging, filling, harbor works, and maintenance of nav- 

 igability. The powers are exercised by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief 

 of Engineers. Except for the limited supersession respecting the Refuse Act 

 discussed earlier, the Rivers and Harbors Act authorities are not negated or 

 abrogated, nor are existing licenses or permits issued under the Act terminated. 

 Rather, in situations where this bill would but for the provisions of 7(a) and 

 (c) also apply to dumping of material in connection with a dredge and fill or 

 other permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, such permit is conditioned upon 

 a certification by the Administrator of EPA that the activity is in conformity 

 with this proposal and any regulations issued under it. The Administrator would 

 not issue a separate permit. 



(3) Alternatives to the proposed dill 



(a) The Federal government's present, scattered regulatory authority over 

 dumping in the oceans and other similar waters could be retained, but each ofl3- 

 cial responsible for administration of a part of the mosaic of laws could imple- 

 ment the policy reflected in the Council's report. Such an approach would give 

 direction to the presently largely uncoordinated regulatory efforts, but it would 

 mean that serious jurisdictional gaps in Federal authority would remain. Most 

 of the relevant Federal laws are not written to reach activity which occurs be- 

 yond United States territorial sea. Yet most dumping takes place beyond these 

 waters, notwithstanding the fact that the dumped material originates within 

 the United States. 



(6) Greater responsibility could be placed on the States through development 

 of a regulatory system akin to that foimd in the Federal Water Pollution Con- 

 trol Act, where States would develop criteria and procedures for dumping per- 

 mits, and the Federal government would aiiprove suitable State systems. But. the 

 interstate character of the oceans and the direct effect upon them by actions taken 

 in such similar areas as estuaries suggests that a unified control is desirable. 

 Also, the authority of the States is limited to their territorial seas. 



(c) A complete ban on all dumping in the oceans. Great Lakes, and other 

 similar waters could be declared and enforced. This alternative, however, would 

 have unnecessary and undesirable environmental effects. It would force all dis- 

 posal to land modes and create undue air and water pollution problems as well 

 as hamper land use of some areas which would have to be used as soUd waste 

 and dredge spoil disposal sites. Such action would arbitrarily place the oceans 



