96 



up to $50,000 per day, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The Attorney 

 General would be authorized to bring actions for equitable relief to redress any 

 such violations, and the Administrator would be authorized to revoke or suspend 

 a violator's permit. All of the Act's prohibitions and requirements would be appli- 

 cable to agencies and employees of the Federal Government, except the remedial 

 provisions described in this paragraph. The bill would require the Coast Guard 

 to conduct surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity. 



The bill has a section which defines its relationship with other laws and with 

 actions taken pursuant to other laws. Generally speaking, existing Federal per- 

 mits would be terminated upon the Act's effective date to the extent that such 

 permits authorize activity covered by the Act, and further permits of a similar 

 nature could not be issued. However, there would be two exceptions to this gen- 

 eral supersession of other laws : (1) the AEC's authorities with respect to radio- 

 active materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 would not be affected 

 (although the AEC would be required to consult with EPA prior to issuing any 

 permit to conduct any activity otherwise regulated by this Act. and to comply 

 with radioactive-material standards set by the Administrator) ; and (2) except 

 as set forth in the next paragraph, the authorities contained in the Rivers and 

 Harbors Act of 1899, as well as all actions taken pursuant to that Act either be- 

 fore or after the effective date of this proposal, would be preserved. In situa- 

 tions in which this Act and the Act of 1899 both apply to dumping of material 

 in connection with a dredge, fill or other permit issued by the Corps of Engi- 

 neers, the permit would be issued by the latter only after receiving certification 

 from EPA that the proposed activity is in conformity with this Act. 



The bill would supersede the Refuse Act insofar as that Act applies to dump- 

 ing of materials in waters covered by the bill, and would repeal the Supervisory 

 Harbors Act of 1888, an act which has been used to regulate ocean dumping of 

 materials transported from the harbors of New York, Baltimore, and Hampton 

 Roads, Virginia. 



EPA recommends the enactment of H.R. 4723. The bill contains the following 

 major elements, all of which are considered essential to a rational and compre- 

 hensive ocean dumping policy : 



1. In addition to its appUeation toi ocean waters, the bill would apply to the 

 Great Lakes as well as to certain internal waters having characteristics of open 

 ocean waters (salt-water gulfs, bays, lagoons, harbors, etc.). 



2. The bill would require permits for two types of activity which are not 

 necessarily related: (a) transportation of materials from the United States for 

 dumping in ocean waters anytchere ; and (b) dumping of materials — whether 

 transported from the United States or not — in waters covered by the Act which 

 are within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in waters of the 

 contiguous zone where the dumping may affect the territory or territorial sea of 

 the United States. Under this approach, the regulatory au*"hority of the United 

 States is utilized to its fullest extent consistent with established principles of in- 

 ternational law. 



3. The bill is coordina<"ed with other laws and with water quality manage- 

 ment programs carried out pursuant to other laws. The bill would for the most 

 part be inapplicable to internal navigable waterways, which are protected by 

 water quality standards established by the Sta*^es or by joint Federal-State ac- 

 tion pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and by the require- 

 ments of the Refuse Act of 1899. In order to ra^^ionalize the overlap which does 

 exist between this proposal and either the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

 or the Refuse Act (on overlap which is limited primarily to the Great Lakes 

 and coast^al waters out to the three mile limit), the bill provides: (a) that it 

 does not apply to effluent from outfall structures (which are adequately regulated 

 by the Refuse Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) ;^ (b) that 

 the Refuse Act is superseded insofar as it applies to dumping of materials in 

 waters covered by the bill; and (c) that no permit may be issued which would 

 violate water quality standards. 



1 H.R. 5966, an Administration proposal to amend section 10 of the Federal Water 

 Pollution Control Act, would, inter alia, authorize the Administrator of EPA to establish 

 water quality standards for the high seas applicable to the discharee of material trans- 

 ported from or originating within the United States. This would enable the Administrator 

 to regulate discharges from ocean outfalls, a category of discharge not covered by H.R. 4723. 



