100 



2. The definition of "ocean waters" may give some problems. The meaning 

 of "territorial waters" is not clear, although the term is probably intended to 

 be limited to offshore territorial waters, since inclusion of internal territorial 

 waters would conflict with the generic "ocean waters." The scope of "high seas 

 adjacent to the territorial waters" is also not clear. 



3. EPA has reservations about the provision which would prohibit the issuance 

 of permits for the disposal of wastes in the United States territorial sea. The 

 provision is unnecessary since under H.R. 4723 and similar bills the Adminis- 

 trator would have authority to prohibit dumping in such waters where appropri- 

 ate, and very little dumping is carried out in such waters in any event. 

 Furthermore, some carefully planned and controlled disposal of waste materials 

 in these waters may be desirable, e.g., the sinking of car bodies or other similar 

 material to serve as a shelter for fish. 



H.R. 1383; H.R. 805 (also 807, 808, 1329, 2581, and 5705) 



Under H.R. 1383, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, would be required to establish standards applicable to the de- 

 posit or discharge into the "coastal waters" of the United States of all industrial 

 wastes, sludge, and spoil, and all other materials that might be harmful to the 

 wildlife or ecology of these waters. These standards would require any person, 

 before discharging such materials into such waters, to present sufficient evid- 

 dence to sustain a burden of proof that such materials will not endanger the 

 natural environment and ecology of such waters. These standards would be re- 

 quired to be adopted and enforced by any agency of Federal or State government 

 that issues licenses for disposal of materials in coastal waters. The States would 

 be authorized to establish more stringent standards pro\aded they contain ade- 

 quate procedures for enforcement. District courts would have jurisdiction to re- 

 strain violations. Violators of standards would be liable to civil penalties of not 

 more than $10,000 or less than $5,000 per day of violation. Outstanding Federal 

 permits would be terminated as of the effective date of the proposal. 



H.R. 805 is essentially the same as H.R. 1383, except ( 1 ) the standards would 

 be established jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of 

 EPA; (2) the standards would be applicable to "ocean, coastal, and other wa- 

 ters" rather than simply to "coastal water," and (3) EPA rather than the In- 

 terior Department would be the agency charged with administrative responsi- 

 bilities. In H.R. 805, "ocean, coastal, and other waters" are defined in the same 

 way as these words are defined in H.R. 4723, except that the bill's application 

 to ocean waters would appear to be limited to the territorial sea and the con- 

 tiguous zone. The term "coastal waters" as used in H.R. 1383 is not defined. The 

 words "deposit or discharge" as used in both bills would appear to embrace con- 

 tinuous discharges as well as intermittent dumping. 



EPA is opposed to the enactment of these bills because they overlap existing 

 law. Water quality standards have already been established under the Federal 

 Water Pollution Control Act for all of the waters to which these bills relate ex- 

 cept the waters of the contiguous zone, a gap which will be closed if H.R. 5966, 

 an Administration proposal to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

 is enacted. H.R. 5966 would also make these standards enforceable by civil 

 penalty and injunction. Under H.R. 4723, the Administration's ocean dumping 

 proposal, the Administrator of EPA would be precluded from issuing permits 

 whiich violate water quality standards, and under the Refuse Act Permit Pro- 

 gram, the Corps of Engineers will not issue permits which violate or permit a 

 violation of these standards. Moreover, H.R. 1383 and 805, by calling for Federal 

 standards which shall govern unless the States adopt more stringent standards, 

 are inconsistent with the established policy of the Federal Water Pollution Con- 

 trol Act, which places the primary responsibility for the establishment of water 

 quality standards on the States. 



H.R. 285 and H.R. 983 



H.R. 285 would require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service, after a two-year study, to designate those portions of the 

 navigable waters of the United States and of the waters above the Outer 

 Continental Shelf into which he determines that sewage, sludge, spoil and 

 other waste can be safely discharged (in terms of ecological and environmental 

 values). After making such designations, the Secretary of the Interior would 

 be required to establish standards applicable to the discharge of material within 



