90 



1. Tlie bill applies only to dumiping activities carried out by United States 

 citizens or otber persons doing bmsiness in the United States. It would not cover 

 dumping in United States territorial waters, or transportation for dumping from 

 United States ports, carried out by persons lacking these connections with the 

 United States. EPA believes that this gap in coverage is both unnecessary and 

 undesirable. 



2. The bill contains a broad definition of "diunping" which wo'uld include 

 continuous discharges from outfall structures. EPA is opposed to Federal permit 

 requirements applicable to such discharges for reasons discussed above in connec- 

 tion with H.R. 3662. 



3. EPA is opposed to the dumping prohibitions affecting sewage, industrial 

 wastes, radioactive wastes, and chemical and biological warfare agents, for rea- 

 sons discussed above in connection with H.R. 3662. 



4. The bill does not define its relationship with other laws dealing with Federal 

 permits for dumping, notably the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, wliich includes 

 the Refuse Act. Presumably the overlapping requirements of the Refuse Act 

 would remain in effect in areas in which both Acts apply. The bill states that 

 "other provisions of law which are in confiict with this Act are hereby repealed," 

 but this provision does not solve the problem of duplicative, overlapping 

 requirements. 



5. The bill does not provide for administratively as well as judicially imposed 

 penalties, as both H.R. 4723 and H.R. 3662 do, but only for judicial fines. EPA 

 favors the approach taken in H.R. 4723 and H.R. 3662 since it would foster rapid 

 adjudication of violations by administrative personnel having the necessary ex- 

 pertise to deal with the problem. 



6. The establishment of "marine sanctuaries" is beyond the scope of the Ad- 

 ministration's bill, which deals entirely with the control of ocean dumping. 

 However, EPA is completely in accord that certain critical marine areas should 

 be protected from dumping, and would have this objective in mind in administer- 

 ing H.R. 4723, which proAi.des ample authoiity to ban dumping in certain areas. 

 The relationship of the marine sanctuaries proposal to the land use programs 

 proposed by the administration in H.R. 4332 should be examined. Under H.R 

 4332, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to make grants to States 

 to assist them in developing land use programs which would include State con- 

 trols over the use and development of "areas of critical environmental concern," 

 defined in the bill to include coastal zones, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. 



H.R. 1661 (also 5049, 5050) 



This bill provides that no owner or master of a vessel may load or permit the 

 loading of any waste (comprehensively defined) while in any port of the United 

 States, if such waste is to be discharged in "ocean waters," unless such owner 

 or master first obtains a loading permit from the Administrator of EPA and 

 notifies the Coast Guard. "Ocean waters" is defined to mean "any estuarine 

 area, coastal waters. Great Lakes, territorial waters, and the high seas adjacent 

 to the territorial waters." The Administrator would be required to issue loading 

 permits if he determines that dumping of the wastes into ocean waters will 

 not damage the ecology of the marine environment. He would be precluded from 

 issuing any permit for the discharge of any waste between the Continental Shelf 

 and the coast of the United States (meaning, it would appear, within the three- 

 mile territorial sea). The Administrator would have authority to ban loading, 

 transportation and dumping of matter deemed damaging to the marine environ- 

 ment or to human health or welfare. The Coast Guard would be required to 

 conduct surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity. The bill would 

 authorize administratively imposed civil penalties as follows : up to $50,000 

 for the first violation, and up to $100,000 for each subsequent violation. Upon 

 failure of an offending party to pay a penalty, the Administrator would be au- 

 thorized to request the Attorney General to commence a district court action 

 for appropriate relief. Outstanding Federal permits authorizing any activities 

 to which the bill applies would be terminated as of the bill's effective date. 

 EPA is generally favorable to H.R. 1661, with the following major reservations : 

 1. It would not apply, as H.R. 4723 would, to dumping of material in the 

 U.S. territorial sea or contiguous zone which is not loaded on vessels in United 

 States ports. 



