,180 



I ^YOllld like to determine in my own mind when yon consider a pipe- 

 line an outfall and when yon do not. Would a pipeline built for the 

 purpose of conveying sludge and ground-up refuse be considered an 

 outfall and would your proposed legislation apply ? Municipal and in- 

 dustrial sewer lines are considered outfalls and would not be covered 

 in your bill, according to your definition. 



Mr. Train. I am not sure that is correct, Mr. Congressman. I would 

 like to direct myself to that in a written answer if I may. 



Mr. Anderson. That is all I have. 



(The answer follows :) 



The first proviso to subsection 3(f) excepts from "dumping" covered by the 

 bill, "a disposition of any effluent from any outfall structure." We note that "out- 

 fall structure" is a term of art used as a matter of practice in such related areas 

 as the regulations promulgated bv the Corps of Engineers for administration of 

 the Refuse Act. See 33 C.F.R. § 209.131(f) (2). published at 36 Fed. Reg. 6567. 

 We consider an "outfall structure" to be an identifiable artificial or artificially- 

 adapted-natural discharge point for effluents which are transmitted either from 

 facilities located on shore or from artificial islands or other fixed structures lo- 

 cated off shore. 



To our knowledge, the three primary means of dredging used in the United 

 States would not involve outfall structures. A "pipeline" dredge uses a cutter 

 head and suction to remove material from the bottom of a water body. The re- 

 moved material is then pumped through a pipe to the designated disposal loca- 

 tion. A ".sidecast" dredge disposes of the removed material by casting it to one 

 side of the dredging implement. It is mainly used in intercoastal or inland 

 waterways where the removed material is unpolluted : e.g., where it is clean 

 .sand. A "hopper" dredge is often used in seagoing operations and involves taking 

 up the removed material, transporting it to the designated disposal area, and 

 then dumping it. 



Mr. Lennon. Mr. Keith. 



Mr. Keith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I was glad to have some introduction on the subject of marine sanc- 

 tunries. As you know, that is a pet of mine. Ma ssaehu setts has legisla- 

 tion establishing a sanctuary within the 3-mile limit off the cape of 

 our national .^^eashore along the shorelines of Massachusetts and they 

 now have legislation establishing a marine sanctuary for many more 

 areas. 



Does the administration have the authoritv for creatin.g marine sanc- 

 tuaries within the area known as the fishing area — 8 to 10 miles? 



Mr. Train. This is an international law question. Twelve miles 

 could well go beyond the Continental Shelf in some areas. I would say 

 that to the extent that the jurisdiction over dee]) sea dead resources 

 extends the United States would liave jurisdiction to establish a ma- 

 rine sanctuary related to the exploitation of those resources. 



Mr. Keith. Pertinent to the shelf but not the water column ? 



]Mr. Train. That falls under another bodv of law with which T am 

 less familiar. I iust don't know the answer to that. 



Mr. KJEiTH. From the State Department I suspect that is really a 

 very rough one and that is perhaps one of the reasons that we have 

 pot moved more readilv in this area. I am concerned of course about 

 the fi'=:hing grounds and the possible conflict as we continue our search 

 for oil. the exploration phase followed by the exploitation ])hase. The 

 State of Massachusetts has moved forward and I would hope that 

 we could. 



You referred to the State Department. Would the concept of zoning 

 of the Continental Shelf be the kind of a vehicle that we would utilize 



