189 



(The answer follows) : 



The interelationship of Federal and State controls over ocean dumping in- 

 volves consideration of both water quality standards and ocean dumping cri- 

 teria. H.R. 4723 saves from preemption State rules of either type. 



Moreover, state-adopted water quality standards would be a consideration 

 in the evaluation of a Federal ocean dumping permit application, if the appli- 

 cation were for a dumping to take place within the three mile territorial sea. 

 Section 21(b) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides in part 

 that : "Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity . . . 

 which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of the United 

 States, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the 

 State in which the discharge originates . . . that there is reasonable assurance . . . 

 that such activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable 

 water quality standards. . . .No license or permit shall be granted until the 

 certification required by this section has been obtained or has been waived . . ." 

 Section 21(b) (2) goes on to provide for a means of dealing with the situation 

 where a discharge would affect more than one State's waters. 



Mr. DuPoNT. The third question and fourth question are kind of 

 wrapped together on the same subject. If you are going to have EPA 

 issuing permits on the basis of State law, then I think you have a very 

 difficult jurisdictional question and that is whether a Federal agency 

 has the power to interpret and enforce State law. I think you will find 

 those vrho want to dump vrill take advantage of this and bring innu- 

 merable suits involving due process and a lot of things to set the 

 whole thing. 



Perhaps if you are going to make some comments in this area you 

 would let us have the benefit of your thoughts on taking the States 

 out of this field entirely. We are generally dealing with non- State 

 bodies of water, we are dealing wdth really interstate and interna- 

 tional water almost exclusively. If you would give us your comments 

 on eliminating the States completely, and let the Federal Government 

 preem]3t entirely. 



Mr. Train. Be happy to do that. 



Mr. Du Pont. Thank you. 



(The answer follows :) 



States could be involved in controlling ocean dumping only where they have 

 jurisdiction, i.e., ordinarily in their territorial sea, which normally extends three 

 miles from shore. Since States would necessarily become involved through es- 

 tablishing their own permit system alongside a Federal permit system, and 

 since both permits would be required, the State standards would necessarily 

 have to be stricter than the Federal criteria to be meaningful. In consideration 

 of a State's close interest in the waters near its shore, and in light of the fact 

 that ordinarily is exercise of jurisdiction is restricted to these ocean waters, we 

 did not believe that preemption of State regulatory efforts was necessary. 



Mr. DuPoNT. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennox. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ruppe. 



Mr. RupPE. Thank you very much. 



Is there anything in the existing legislation, Mr. Train, or in this 

 legislation here before us that would actually reduce the pollution in 

 our territorial seas to the extent that perhaps in 5 years or 10 years the 

 dredge material will be removed therefrom? This is a major problem 

 in the Great Lakes and I am sure in the Atlantic Ocean. Is there a 

 chance then of alleviating the basic pollution problem in this dredge 

 material? 



Mr. Train. I think that the impact of the dumping of these mate- 

 rials will lessen, as I pointed out in response to an earlier question. It 



