108 



H.R. 805 and H.R. 1383 would also amend the Coordination Act by adding 

 new language, but contain no provision for the designation of recommended 

 dump sites. Rather, they provide for establishment of standards applicable to 

 ocean disposal "of all industrial wastes, sludge, spoil, and all other materials 

 that might be harmful to the wildlife or wildlife resources or to the ecology" of 

 ocean, coastal, and other waters of the United States. The Secretary of the In- 

 terior, in consultation with Chief of Army Engineers (H.R. 1383), or the Secre- 

 tary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in con- 

 sultation with the Secretary of the Army (H.R. 805) would be responsible for 

 promulgation of such standards. 



H.R. 4359 would amend the so-called Estuary Protection Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 

 625) to prohibit the marine disposal of waste materials without an appropriate 

 permit from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and, 

 like H.R. 1095, to require advanced treatment of sewage and industrial waste. 

 Section 3 of H.R. 4359 would also direct the Secretary of Commerce to study 

 and select those areas worthy for designation as marine sanctuaries. H.R. 3662 

 provides for an amendment to the Coordination Act that would also prohibit 

 dumping without a permit from EPA. This bill also contains provision for 

 treatment of waste material and the designation of recommended dumn sites. 



H.R. 1661 and H.R. 5050 are identical bills that would make it unlawful for 

 the owner or master of any vessel to load or permit the loading of waste for ocean 

 disposal without having first obtained a permit to do so from the Administra- 

 tor of EPA. The Administrator would be authorized to issue such permits, to 

 prohibit absolutely the loading, transporting or dumping of any material deemed 

 hazardous to human health or the marine environment, and to designate ocean 

 dump sites. 



Each of these bills represents recognition of the need to control a practice that 

 now threatens our marine environment, and to prevent recurrence in ocean and 

 coastal waters of that blight which afflicts the Great Lakes. In recognition of 

 these same needs, President Nixon last year requested that the Council on En- 

 vironmental Quality study the problems posed by ocean dumping. We participated 

 in the conduct of that study, and were consulted during the preparation of 

 draft legislation to implement recommendations contained in the Council's final 

 report, "Ocean Dumping — A National Policy". That legislation is now pending 

 before your Committee as H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, and we recommend that it 

 be enacted in lieu of the bills discupsed herein. 



While specifics of the proposed "Marine Protection Act of 1971" are covered 

 in a sectional analysis submitted by EPA and in our report on the introduced leg- 

 islation, it should be noted that H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723 combine several pro- 

 visions of the bills described above. The result, we believe, is a comprehensive 

 framework for regulating the transportation and dumping of wastes in the 

 oceans, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes. As several of the other bills propose, 

 a manadatory permit system would be administered by the Envix-onmental Pro- 

 tection Agency. Permits for the transportation and ocean disposal of waste mate- 

 rial could be issued when the Administrator determines that such activity "will 

 not unreasonably endanger or unreasonably degrade human health, welfare, or 

 amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic poten- 

 tialities". The Administrator would also be authorized to prohibit the dumping 

 of a specified material, and to designate recommended dump sites. 



This Department and others would be consulted by the Administrator in estab- 

 lishing criteria against which to measure permit applications. We believe that 

 such consultation will afford an opportunity to contribute our knowledge of the 

 marine environment, and to seek protection of the wildlife, recreation and min- 

 eral resources for which we have primary responsibility. In this connection, we 

 agree with the Council on Environmental Quality that regulatory authority 

 should be vested in an agency whose chief role is environmental control. Amend- 

 ment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for this purpose would tend to 

 disperse regulatory authority and to discourage effective coordination with pro- 

 grams already administered by EPA for the maintenance of air and water quality. 



The Council's study and implementing legislation proposed by the Environ- 

 mental Protection Agency are worthy of careful consideration and, as we recom- 

 mend, prompt approval by your Committee and the Congress. We believe that 



