105 



activity prohibited by subsection (e) of this section. Thereafter no license, per- 

 mit, or authority shall be issued by any oflBcer or employee of the United States 

 which would authorize any activity prohibited by subsection (e) of this section." 



Section 5C(a) of H.R. 1005 would require the Secretary of the Interior, \vathin 

 one hundred and eighty days after the designation of areas as "marine sanc- 

 tuaries", to establish standards for the discharge of waste materials - in all other 

 areas. The standard contained in this section is again a federal "no damage" 

 standard.^ The standard also includes requirements for the treatment of wastes 

 and like H.R. 805 would require persons before discharging wastes to "present 

 sufficient evidence that discharging materials in the location in which they are 

 to be deposited will not endanger the natural environment and ecology" of the 

 navigable and coastal waters of the United States and international waters. 

 Subject to certain exceptions which would allow the States to establish more 

 stringent standards, these standards would be binding on the States and state 

 agencies as well as the Federal Government and all federal agencies. Section 

 50(b) would allow the Secretary of the Interior to api>oint officers to enter and 

 inspect property, plants and facilities in order to determine whether there has 

 been compliance with this section. 



Section 5C (f ) , of H.R. 1095 would provide that : 



"(f) Upon the issuance of standards under subsection (a) of this section 

 applicable to any area, all licenses, permits, or authorizations which have been 

 issued by any officer or employee of the United States under authority of any 

 other provision of law with respect to discharges in an area shall be terminated 

 and of no effect to the extent they authorize any activity prohibited by subsection 

 (g) of this section." * 



UnMke H.R. 285, H.R. 805, and H.R. 983, H.R. 1095 contains specific require- 

 ments for disposal of military materials including chemical, biological, and radio- 

 logical warfare agents. 



It is not entirely clear from the language of the bills, what impact H.R. 285, 

 H.R. 805, H.R. 983 and H.R. 1095 would have on the Commission's responsibilities 

 for licensing non-federal hydroelectric projects under Part I of the Federal Power 

 Act (16 U.S.C. 792-823), and for issuing certificates of pubUc convenience and 

 necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities under 

 Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f). It could well be argued that 

 the definitions of wastes used in the bills are not intended to encompass dis- 

 charges from non-federal hydroelectric power plants or from natural gas pipeline 

 facilities. H.R. 805 could have a similarly limited impact by virtue of its nar- 

 rower definition of "ocean, coastal, and other waters". 



The Commission opposes enactment of H.R. 805 in its present form because 

 subsection (i) would terminate all FPC licenses, permits and certificates on the 

 date H.R. 805 becomes effective. We believe that enactment of H.R. 805 would 

 seriously impair the attainment of an adequate supply of electric energy through- 

 out the United States. The proposed bill is contrary to the national policy of com- 

 prehensive development of the Nation's water resources articulated in Part I of 

 the Federal Power Act. {First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. F.P.C., 328 U.S. 

 152,180-181 (1946). 



While the Commission supports their basic intent, we question whether the 

 provisions in H.R. 285, H.R. 983 and H.R. 1095 represent the best or most orderly 

 means of achieving the general objectives of these bills. We believe that the com- 

 prehensive approach embodied in H.R. 4723, the Administration's proposed 

 "Marine Protection Act of 1971" offers a significantly better solution to the grow- 

 ing problem of unregulated ocean dumping. Under that proposal the Adminis- 

 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency would be authorized to issue 

 permits for the dumping in the oceans, coastal and other waters of materials 

 which he determines "will not unreasonably degrade or unreasonably endanger 

 human health, welfare or amenities of the marine environment, ecological sys- 

 tems or economic potentialities'". In reviewing and evaluating individual permit 

 applications the Administrator wou'd apply criteria which extend to both (1) 

 the likely impact of the proposed dumping on human health and welfare and the 



- See footnote on p. 104. 



3 "Such standards shall be for the purpose of insuring that no damage to, or loss of, any 

 marine life or ■wildlife or other resources necessary for the ecological balance of the area 

 or pollution of the navigable waters of the United States will result from any such 

 activity ..." § 5C(a). 



* Subsection (g) would subject persons discharging wastes in violation of established 

 standards to heavy fines. 



62-513 0—71 8 



