94 



amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), discharges which violate applicahle water 

 quality standards are subject to suit for abatement, and, in addition, discharges 

 from federally licensed activities are generally subject to a requirement for 

 certification that there is reasonable assurance that applicable water quality 

 standards will not be violated. Furthermore, the Refuse Act (33 U.S.C. 407) 

 makes it unlawful to discharge any refuse matter, other than liquid effluents 

 flowing from streets or sewers, into any of the navigable waters of the United 

 States or their tributaries, unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary of the 

 Army upon terms and conditions specified by him. With respect to this latter 

 authority, in order to further the objectives of the Refuse Act the President, 

 by Executive Order 11574 (December 25, 1970, 35 F.R. 19627), has directed the 

 Secretary of the Army to establish a permit program in cooperation with the 

 Administrator of EPA "to regulate the discharge of pollutants and other refuse 

 matter into the navigable waters of the United States or their tributaries and 

 the placing of such matter upon their banks." Pursuant to that Order, the Army 

 Corps of Engineers published proposed regulations on December 31, 1970 (35 

 F.R. 20005). 



Accordingly, with respect to the oceans, gulfs, bays, sea-water lagoons, salt- 

 water harbors, other coastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows, and the Great 

 Lakes, we favor enactment of the text of H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723. 



In our opinion, H.R. 285. H.R. 337, H.R. 549, H.R. 983, H R. 1095, H.R. 4217. 

 and H.R. 4584 should not be enacted into law. To reiterate some of the objec- 

 tions we identifled in our letters last fall, several of these bills deflne waste ma- 

 terial so broadly as to encompass radioactive materials and effluents. The AEC 

 has licensing authority over effluent discharges and the disposal of all radioactive 

 waste materials, except radioactive material produced in accelerators and na- 

 turally occurring radium and its daughters. This is a highly specialized health 

 and safety field ; dual regulation or the diffusion of Federal responsibility in 

 this area would, in our judgment, be highly undesirable. 



Several of the other bills, in their severe prohibition on discharging vaguely 

 defined material, could be construed in such a way as to constitute a serious 

 interference with our national defense capability. The normal discharge of a 

 military ship's flre and bilge pump system, or flring of any ordnance by a mili- 

 tary vessel or aircraft, could be interpreted as the discharge of "military ma- 

 terial" into the waters. 



In short, for the reasons mentioned above, and those advanced in our com- 

 panion letter on H.R. 4247, H.R. 4723 and several other bills, we do not favor en- 

 actment of H.R. 285, H.R. 337, H.R. 549, H.R. 983, H.R. 1095. H.R. 4217 and 

 H.R. 4584. 



The Ofiice of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection 

 to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's 

 program 



Cordially, 



Glenn T. Seaborg, Chaimimi. 



General Counsel of the Department of Defense, 



Wasliington, B.C., April 9, 1971. 

 Hon. Edward A. Garmatz, 



Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- 

 tives, Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for the views of the 

 Department of Defense on H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, 92d Congress, similar bills 

 "To regulate the dumping of material in the oceans, coastal, and other waters 

 and for other purposes". 



The purpose of the bills is stated in their titles. If enacted, the bills would 

 make the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency responsible for 

 establishing appropriate regulations for the application of the environmental 

 standards contained in the proposals. Any agency or person would have to 

 obtain a permit from the Administrator before transporting materials for dump- 

 ing or before dumping materials in the protected areas. There are certain excep- 

 tions to this latter requirement for routine operation of vessels and for inten- 

 tional placement of devices in the waters, if such placement is for a purpose 

 other than disposal. 



