97 



4. Control over dumping is consolidated in EPA, an agency which has as its 

 chief purpose the protection of the environment, and which possesses the research 

 and regulatory capability necessary foe developing and carrying on't a compre- 

 hensive ocean dumping policy. 



H.E. 3662 



This bill provides that no person may dump waste material (comprehensively 

 defined) into the "ocean waters of the United States," or "transport such ma- 

 terial through such waters" (presumably for dumping- without a permit from 

 the Administrator of EPA. "Ocean waters" is defined to mean estuarine areas, 

 coastal waters (out to the three-mile limit), the Great Lakes, and waters above 

 the Outer Continental Shelf (from the three-mile limit to the 2(X)-meter depth 

 contour). The "dumping" to which the bill applies includes disposal of ma- 

 terial by any means whatsoever. The Administrator would be authorized to 

 issue permits for dumping where he determines that it will not damage the 

 ecology of the marine environment, taking into account such factors as land- 

 based alternatives and the effect of the dumping on human health and welfare, 

 fisheries resources, and marine ecosystems. Permits would be required to sipecify 

 restrictions relative to the type and amount of material authorized to be diuuped, 

 the location of dumping, and the duration of the permit. The Administrator 

 would not be allowed to issue permits authorizing the dumping of radioactive 

 wastes, toxic industrial wastes, or chemical or biological warfare materials. In 

 the case of permits for the dumping of sewage or industrial wastes, the Admin- 

 istrator would not be allowed to issue a permit (1) after January 1, 19T2, unless 

 such wastes had received primary treatment; (2) after January 1, 1974, unless 

 they had also received tertiary treatment; and (3) after January 1, 1976, unless 

 they had also received tertiar>^ treatment. The Administrator would have au- 

 thority to suspend, revoke, revise or condition permits. The Coast Guard would 

 be required to conduct sun^eillance and other appropriate enforcement activities. 

 Civil and criminal penalties would be the same as in H.R. 4723, except that 

 one-half of any penalty or fine would be payable to the informer providing the 

 information resulting in such penalty or fine. Equitable relief to redress viola- 

 tion would be available. The Administrator would be required to conduct the 

 investigation and research with respect to marine ecology necessary to carry 

 out the purposes of the Act; appropriations of $1 million per year would be 

 authorized for this purpose. 



EPA is generally favorable to the provisions of H.R. 3662, which are similar 

 or identical in many respects to the provisions of the Administration's proposal 

 set forth in H.R. 4723. However, EPA has the following major comments or 

 reservations about H.R. 3662 : 



1. The prohibition against transport through "ocean waters" (waters out to 

 the 200-meter depth contour) without a permit is not linked to the place of 

 origin of the transporting vessel. Insofar as this provision is made applicable 

 to vessels which are not leaving United States ports, it may violate the rights 

 of innocent passage and freedom of the seas under international law. 



2. The prohibition against dumping between the 12-mile limit and the 200- 

 meter depth contour, regardless of the place of origin of the material to be 

 dumped, may also raise problems under international law. 



3. EPA is opposed to the Act's broad definition of "dumping," which wovild 

 include continuous discharges from outfall structures which are already sub- 

 ject to regulation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and, in the 

 case of industrial wastes, by the Refuse Act as well. The imposition of further 

 Federal controls over such discharges, in addition to those already provided 

 under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Refuse Act, is duplicative 

 and unnecessary. There is no provision in the bill for supersession of existing, 

 overlapping legal authorities. 



4. EPA is opposed to the provisions of the bill which would prohibit the Ad- 

 ministrator from issuing permits to dump specified categories of wastes. It is 

 agreed that, generally speaking, ocean disposal of radioactive wastes, toxic in- 

 dustrial wastes, and chemical and biological warfare agents is undesirable and 

 should not be allowed. However, there may be the rare exceptional case, e.g., reac- 

 tor components from nuclear powered vessels, in which ocean disposal will pres- 

 ent a lesser threat to human health, welfare or the environment than land-based 

 disposal. We favor the approach taken in H.R. 4723, which would give the Ad- 



