187 



prohibited acts, 4(b), no one can dump material in a zone contiguous 

 to the 12-mile zone that would affect our territorial waters. So, if some- 

 one had a pipeline that transported the materials 121^ miles out, but 

 you concluded that this would affect our territorial waters within 12 

 miles, you could take action ? 



Mr. Teain". No ; that is outside the contiguous zone. 



Mr. Kyros. It says in 4(b) : 



No person shall dump material * * * in a zone contiguous to the territorial 

 sea of the United States, extending to a line 12 nautical miles seaward from the 

 base line of the territorial sea * * * to the extent that it may affect the terri- 

 torial sea or the territory of the United States. 



So if that dumping affected water within 12 miles because of 

 currency 



Mr. Train. No, sir. 



Mr. Kyuos. No? 



Mr. Train. It is confusing, I will certainly agree with that. What 

 this is saying is that from the 3-mile limit to the 12-mile limit of the 

 contiguous zone any dumping that occurs within that zone is subject 

 to the control of the act if it has an effect or if it may affect the terri- 

 torial sea which is within the 3-mile limit or the territory/ of the 

 United States itself. 



Mr, Kyros. I see. But does the term "tra^nsportation" include withm 

 it the definition by pipeline as well as by ship ? 



Mr. Train. I am not sure of the answer to that. 



Let me say for the record this is Mr. Charles Lettow, an attorney 

 with the staff of the Council. 



This apparently falls in the definition of dumping rather than in any 

 definition of transportation, so that if there is a gap here in the cover- 

 age of the act this is probably where the language would be operated 

 on. 



Mr. Lennon. Would the gentleman from California yield further 

 to the gentleman from Maine ? 



Mr. McClosket. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Kyros. Thank you. I am all through, sir. 



Mr. Train. It excludes the disposition of an effluent from the outfall 

 in the definition of dumping so that your normal pipe would not be 

 covered by this act. Now, excuse me. 



Mr. MgCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further 

 questions. 



Mr. Lennon. The gentleman from Delaware. 



Mr. DuPoNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Train, I would like to raise some questions in what I think 

 is an area that maybe we ought to make a direct about face from the 

 previous Federal practice and that is in the question of permitting 

 overlapping State jurisdiction. I have recently had some contacts 

 with the Environmental Protection Agency in regard to the enforce- 

 ment of the Air Quality Act and frankly it is an administrative dis- 

 aster over there and I will take that up with those people when they 

 come. 



Looking for a minute at ocean dumping and the fact that you might 

 permit States to set up standards of their own, it seems to me that 

 there are four questions raised that suggest very strongly that we 



