169> 



or our territorial sea. Further direct controls over dumping in the 

 waters above the Outer Continental Shelf of wastes not originating 

 in the United States do not seem necessary. In light of the experience 

 gained through our study such dumping does not present a practical 

 problem. As far as we know, no such dumping takes place. 



Paragraph (b) (4) of H.R. 3662 would prohibit the Administrator 

 from issuing permits to dump radioactive wastes, toxic industrial 

 wastes, and chemical and biological warfare materials. Subsection 5(f) 

 of our bill would give the Administrator more flexibility in dealing 

 with the problems caused by particular pollutants, providing, where 

 and when appropriate, for a complete ban on the dumping of partic- 

 ular materials. 



Satisfactory alternatives to ocean dumping may not be available 

 in all cases. We would not favor foreclosing the Administrator from 

 considering a disposal option which in a given case may be environ- 

 mentally the most desirable or, put another way, the least undesirable. 

 Some have said that the specific ban on dumping particular materials 

 actually only carries out the policy as expressed in our report and 

 which I have described earlier. This is not the case. 



For example, we recommended continuing the present prohibition 

 on the dmiiping of high-level radioactive wastes. We recommended 

 maintaining careful controls on dumping certain low-level wastes. 

 And, where careful advance planning could not avert occurrence of a 

 situation where the ocean dumping alternative was demonstrably the 

 least harmful, we recognized that it should be chosen. The upshot of 

 our whole approach is that the Administrator will be in the best 

 position to assemble, not only from his agency but other agencies, the 

 scientific and technical data necessary to choose between an immediate 

 ban, a gradual phasing out, or other regulatory control as warranted 

 by the facts of each case. 



A further bill, H.R. 1661, would regulate the discharge from vessels 

 of wastes originating in the United States, requiring that a nermit be 

 obtained from the Administrator of EPA prior to such loading. This 

 bill would also bar the discharge of wastes in waters between the 

 seaward edge of the Continental Shelf and the coast of the United 

 States. Again, we agree with much that is contained in H.R. 1661, and 

 particularly with its focus on regulating the transport of wastes from 

 the United States. 



We do recommend extending regulation to transport other than by 

 vessel, since much dumping of material such as dredge spoils does not 

 take place from vessels but rather from special conveyer systems or 

 pipelines which are not considered outfalls. And, we do not advocate 

 an absolute ban on dumping for any area which is selected only by 

 geography and not by its ecological characteristics. Relationship of the 

 area to alternatives to ocean dumping also is important because many 

 materials such as unpolluted dredge spoil can be dumped in (the par- 

 ticular general sea area from which they originated, and returning 

 them to a carefully selected nearby site may be the action most in ac- 

 cord with maintaining and preserving the existing land and marine 

 environments. 



Another bill, H.R. 4359, would combine many of the elements of 

 the bills previously mentioned, but would also direct the Secretary of 



62-513 — 71 12 



